Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 137 Page ID #:1205
1 Douglas Q. Hahn, California Bar No. 257559 [email protected] 2 Salil Bali State Bar No. 263001 3 [email protected] STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C. 4 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 5 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 Telephone: (949) 725-4000 6 Fax: (949) 725-4100 7 Victor G. Hardy (admitted pro hac vice) 8 [email protected] 9 William M. Parrish (admitted pro hac vice) 10 [email protected] R. Floyd Walker (admitted pro hac vice) 11 [email protected] 12 HARDY PARRISH YANG, LLP Spicewood Business Center 13 4412 Spicewood Springs Rd., Suite 202 14 Austin, Texas 78759 Phone: (512)520-9407 15 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff Preservation Technologies LLC
17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES Civil Action Nos. 20 LLC, Plaintiff, 2:18-cv-03058-DOC-JPR 21
22 v. SECOND AMENDED 23 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT MG CONTENT RK LTD., and MG INFRINGEMENT 24 CONTENT DP LTD., 25 Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded
26 27 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 2 of 137 Page ID #:1206
1 Plaintiff Preservation Technologies LLC (“Preservation” or “Plaintiff”), by 2 and through its attorneys, for its Complaint against MG Content RK Ltd. and MG 3 Content DP Ltd. (together, “Defendants”) hereby alleges as follows: 4 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 5 1. This is a patent infringement action to end Defendants’ direct, joint, 6 contributory, and/or induced infringement of Plaintiff Preservation’s patented 7 inventions, including but not limited to Defendants’ unauthorized and infringing 8 use, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, and/or importation of methods and 9 products incorporating Plaintiff’s inventions. 10 2. Preservation has obtained all substantial rights and interest to U.S. 11 Patent No. 5,813,014, U.S. Patent No. 5,832,499, U.S. Patent No. 6,092,080, U.S. 12 Patent No. 6,353,831, U.S. Patent No. 5,832,495, U.S. Patent No. 6,477,537, U.S. 13 Patent No. 6,199,060, U.S. Patent No. 6,212,527, U.S. Patent No. 6,549,911, U.S. 14 Patent No. 6,581,071, and U.S. Patent No. 6,574,638 (collectively, the “Asserted 15 Patents” or “Patents-in-Suit”). 16 3. Defendants provide, use, put into use, sell, offer for sale, distribute, 17 manufacture, and/or import infringing products and services, and encourage 18 others, including their customers, to use Defendants’ products and services in an 19 infringing manner. 20 4. Plaintiff Preservation seeks to prevent Defendants from continuing 21 infringement of Plaintiff’s patent rights. Plaintiff further seeks past and future 22 damages and prejudgment and post judgment interest for Defendants’ past 23 infringement of the Asserted Patents. 24 25 26 -1- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 3 of 137 Page ID #:1207
1 II. THE PARTIES 2 A. Plaintiff 3 5. Plaintiff Preservation Technologies LLC is a limited liability company 4 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principle 5 place of business located at 903 E. 18th Street, Suite 223, Plano, TX 75074. 6 B. Defendants 7 6. MindGeek is a business name for the operations conducted by a 8 number of domestic and foreign entities that operate over 100 websites, including 9 Pornhub, YouPorn, Tube8, and XTube (among other sites enumerated in Section 10 VII) and conduct other activities within the United States. MindGeek, among 11 other things, is the largest distributor of free internet porn in the world. Its 12 business model is to provide free internet porn to website visitors in the United 13 States and it makes a large portion of its revenue from advertising from United 14 States companies and subscriptions from website visitors. 15 7. Upon information and belief, MG Content RK Ltd. is a private limited 16 company organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, with a 17 place of business located at 24/26 City Quay, Dublin, Ireland. 18 8. Upon information and belief, MG Content DP Ltd. is a private limited 19 company organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, with a 20 place of business located at 24/26 City Quay, Dublin, Ireland. 21 9. Upon information and belief, MG Content RK Ltd. and MG Content 22 DP Ltd. are indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries of MindGeek S.a.r.l. 23 10. Upon information and belief, MindGeek S.a.r.l. is a Société à 24 responsabilité limitée organized and existing under the laws of Luxembourg, with 25 26 -2- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 4 of 137 Page ID #:1208
1 a places of business located at (1) 32 Boulevard Royal, L-2249 Luxembourg City, 2 Luxembourg and (2) 23000 West Empire Avenue, 7th Floor, Burbank California 3 91504. 4 11. Upon information and belief, MindGeek S.a.r.l. was formerly known 5 as “Manwin Licensing International S.a.r.l.” 6 12. Herein, “MindGeek” or “Defendant(s)” refers to MG Content RK 7 Ltd., MG Content DP Ltd. and all of their parents (e.g., MindGeek S.a.r.l.), 8 subsidiaries, affiliates and other entities involved in infringing activity. 9 Collectively, MindGeek S.a.r.l. and its network of subsidiaries will be referred to 10 as the “MindGeek Organization,” which upon information and belief consists of 11 over 100 entities incorporated or otherwise organized throughout the world. 12 13. Upon information and belief, MindGeek S.a.r.l. is the owner of the 13 domain names of the Accused Websites enumerated in Section VII. 14 14. Upon information and belief, MindGeek S.a.r.l. grants other entities of 15 the MindGeek organization the right to use the domain names and/or operate the 16 domains. 17 15. Upon information and belief, the MindGeek Organization operates as 18 a single business enterprise for the purpose of producing, distributing, and 19 monetizing pornography on the Internet. 20 16. The corporate structure of Defendants and the MindGeek 21 Organization and its related entities is not public information. Upon information
1 22 and belief, MindGeek S.a.r.l. has at least 60 direct subsidiaries. 0F Including 23
24 1 Hannon Brenton, “Porn empire reports half billion dollars in revenue – but ends 25 year with loss”, Luxembourg Times (Mar. 23, 2018) available at 26 -3- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 5 of 137 Page ID #:1209
1 indirect subsidiaries, the total number of subsidiaries of MindGeek S.a.r.l. is 2 believed to be at least 150. Upon information and belief, the MindGeek 3 Organization uses the complexity of its corporate structure for the purpose of 4 avoiding liabilities by obscuring the identity of the entity or entities responsible 5 for various MindGeek actions. 6 17. MindGeek S.a.r.l. has the authority to direct that its subsidiaries, 7 including MindGeek USA, make political donations. In 2012, Froytal Services 8 Limited (“Froytal”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of MindGeek S.a.r.l. incorporated 9 under Cyprus law, made a political contribution to a Los Angles, California ballot 10 measure committee (the “Committee”). For compliance reasons, this contribution 11 was refunded to Froytal with the expectation that it would be replaced by a 12 contribution from MindGeek USA. Exhibit 1 in Support of Stipulation, Decision 13 and Order at 6, No on Government Waste, No on Measure B, Major Funding By 14 Manwin USA; Diane Duke; Froytal Services Limited; and Mindgeek USA 15 Incorporated F.K.A. Manwin USA, Inc., Cal. Fair Political Practices Commission 16 (FPPC) Case No. 15/1133 (approved Dec. 17, 2015), available at 17 http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/Stipulations/2015/ 18 December/No on Government Waste - Stip and Exh.pdf (hereinafter “FPPC 19 Stipulation”). 20 18. The manner in which MindGeek Organization entities are operated 21 creates the appearance of a single entity. For example, the relationship between 22 Froytal and MindGeek USA was so unclear that a business partner of MindGeek 23
24 https://luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/33248-porn-empire-reports-half-billion-dollars-in- 25 revenue-but-ends-year-with-loss. 26 -4- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 6 of 137 Page ID #:1210
1 USA believed that they were the same entity. In particular, an employee of the 2 Free Speech Coalition and director of the Committee, Diane Duke, explained that 3 Froytal often paid membership fees on behalf of MindGeek USA. Id. at 8. 4 Accordingly, she “mistakenly viewed Froytal and Manwin USA as the same 5 company.” Id. 6 19. As MindGeek USA was neither a parent nor subsidiary of Froytal, 7 such financial maneuvering must have been with the blessing and encouragement 8 of their common parent company, MindGeek S.a.r.l. This arrangement was 9 confirmed by a spokesperson for the MindGeek entities who explained that 10 “Thylmann runs the global company and that he ‘absolutely’ personally approved
2 11 funding the opposition to Measure B.” 1F Upon information and belief, the 12 MindGeek entities were still subject to this form of common control when the 13 MindGeek Organization received Preservation’s notice of MindGeek’s patent 14 infringement in 2014. 15 20. The MindGeek entities function as an integrated operation. Legal 16 counsel for Manwin Canada responded authoritatively to allegations against
3 17 MindGeek USA, Inc.2F Despite working for a different MindGeek entity, counsel 18 was able to make a declaration under penalty of perjury regarding the operation of 19 the websites accused in that action (www.redtube.com, www.pornhub.com & 20 www.tube8.com). These websites are among Defendants’ Accused Websites 21 (enumerated in Section VII) which are at issue in the present action. Upon 22
23 2 https://www.noozhawk.com/article/110212_mark_cromer_behind_the_ latex_curtain. 24 3 Gagnic Delaration, ExitExchange Corp. v Manwin USA, Inc., No. 2:13-cv- 25 00396, ECF No. 13-1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013). 26 -5- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 7 of 137 Page ID #:1211
1 information and belief, it is the common practice for individuals that are officially 2 employees of one MindGeek Organization entity to perform tasks for other 3 MindGeek Organization entities without the use of formal agreements. 4 21. In response to a patent infringement action against MindGeek- 5 operated websites, MindGeek USA provided information required by Eastern
4 6 District of Texas Local Patent Rule 3-4(a).3F Among other things, this rule 7 requires the production of “source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, 8 artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any 9 aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent 10 claimant in its [infringement contentions].” Without the cooperation and 11 assistance of its parent company, MindGeek USA would have been unable to 12 provide this information on its own behalf. This shows that MindGeek S.a.r.l. and 13 its subsidiaries function in a coordinated manner. 14 22. In defending a lawsuit filed by Skky, Inc. against Manwin USA, Inc. 15 (now known as MindGeek USA) and Manwin Holding S.a.r.l., the MindGeek 16 Organization responded as follows: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 4 ExitExchange Corp. v FriendFinder Networks, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00396, ECF 25 No. 57 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2013). 26 -6- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 8 of 137 Page ID #:1212
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Skky, Inc., v. Manwin USA, Inc., No. 0:13-cv-02086, ECF No. 27 at 1 (D.M.N. 8 Oct. 16, 2013). Despite not being named in the complaint, MindGeek S.a.r.l., 9 under its previous name, considered itself to be a Defendant. 10 23. Upon information and belief, it is the general practice of MindGeek 11 USA to notify MindGeek S.a.r.l. of claims of patent infringement directed to 12 MindGeek-controlled websites. Upon information and belief, MindGeek S.a.r.l. 13 directs and controls the other defendants and other MindGeek Organization 14 entities in performance of infringing activity. Because of the manner in which it 15 operates and the close connection between the MindGeek Organization entities, 16 the knowledge of MindGeek USA, MindGeek S.a.r.l. and the other MindGeek 17 defendants and MindGeek Organization entities with respect to infringement of 18 the patents-in-suit is attributable to all MindGeek Organization entities that are 19 involved with the operation of “Defendants’ Accused Websites”. 20 24. Upon information and belief, employees of the MindGeek 21 Organization entities regularly conduct business on behalf of or for the benefit of 22 other MindGeek Organization entities, including Defendants in the present action, 23 in the normal course of their employment. 24 25 26 -7- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 9 of 137 Page ID #:1213
1 25. Upon information and belief, the members of the MindGeek 2 Organization share common legal representation for all website-related matters 3 and all patent-related matters. 4 26. Upon information and belief, the MindGeek Organization negotiates 5 patent licenses collectively and not on the basis of individual members or entities. 6 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7 27. This is an action for patent infringement, which arises under the 8 Patent Laws of the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283-285, 9 among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action under 28 10 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a). 11 28. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over 12 Defendants, and venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 13 (c), and 1400 because, among other things, Defendants have established minimum 14 contacts within the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants 15 will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For 16 example, Defendants have placed products and services that practice and/or 17 embody the claimed inventions of the Asserted Patents into the stream of 18 commerce with the knowledge and/or reasonable expectation that purchasers and 19 users of such products were located within this district. In addition, Defendants 20 have sold, advertised, marketed, and distributed products in this district that 21 practice the claimed inventions of the Asserted Patents. Defendants derive 22 substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products distributed within this 23 district, and/or expect or should reasonably expect their actions to have 24 25 26 -8- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 10 of 137 Page ID #:1214
1 consequences within this district, and derives substantial revenue from interstate 2 and international commerce. 3 29. Venue properly lies in this district under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 4 1391(b), (c) and 1400 because Defendants are foreign corporations not 5 incorporated in the United States and have committed acts within this judicial 6 district giving rise to this action, and Defendants continue to conduct business in 7 this judicial district, including one or more acts of selling, using, importing and/or 8 offering for sale infringing products or providing service and support to 9 Defendants’ customers in this District. 10 IV. PLAINTIFF’S PATENTS 11 30. On September 22, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,813,014 (“the 12 ’014 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Method and Apparatus for 13 Management of Multimedia Assets.” The invention disclosed by the ’014 Patent 14 relates to a multimedia system including components that allow input, information 15 retrieval, and display. The claims of the ’014 Patent cover, by way of example 16 only, a method of accessing multimedia data comprising the steps of defining a 17 catalogue, specifying a search request, identifying a result, retrieving a portion of 18 multimedia data, storing the search request, and storing the search result. 19 31. On November 3, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,832,499 (“the ’499 20 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Digital Library System.” The 21 invention disclosed by the ’499 Patent relates to a digital library system to 22 capture, access, manage, and distribute multimedia data. The claims of the ’499 23 Patent cover, by way of example only, a digital library system comprising a data 24 capture system, an access management system, and a distribution system. 25 26 -9- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 11 of 137 Page ID #:1215
1 32. On July 18, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,092,080 (“the ’080 2 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Digital Library System.” The 3 invention disclosed by the ’080 Patent relates to a digital library system that 4 includes systems and mechanisms for capturing, managing, and distributing 5 multimedia data. The claims of the ’080 Patent cover, by way of example only, a 6 digital library system comprising a cataloging system, an access management 7 system, and a distribution system. 8 33. On March 5, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,353,831 (“the ’831 9 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Digital Library System.” The 10 invention disclosed by the ’831 Patent relates to a digital library system that 11 includes systems and mechanisms for capturing, managing, and distributing 12 multimedia data. The claims of the ’831 Patent cover, by way of example only, a 13 digital library system comprising a means for cataloguing multimedia data, a 14 means for managing access, and a means for distributing. 15 34. On November 3, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,832,495 (“the ’495 16 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Method and Apparatus for 17 Cataloguing Multimedia Data.” The invention disclosed by the ’495 Patent relates 18 to cataloguing of data such as multimedia data. It comprises a catalog including 19 one or more catalog elements, each of which has one or more attributes. The 20 claims of the ’495 Patent cover, by way of example only, a method of cataloguing 21 comprising creating a catalogue, specifying a description, creating a catalogue 22 element, and creating a point to at least one keyword. 23 35. On November 5, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,477,537 (“the ’537 24 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Method and Apparatus for 25 26 -10- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 12 of 137 Page ID #:1216
1 Management of Multimedia Assets.” The invention disclosed by the ’537 Patent 2 relates to a multimedia system including components that allow input, information 3 retrieval, and display. The claims of the ’537 Patent cover, by way of example 4 only, an application program interface (API) comprising API protocol means 5 comprising a command interface between a first system component and an 6 additional system component comprising means for selecting multimedia data, 7 means for retrieving multimedia data, and means for displaying multimedia data. 8 36. On March 6, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,199,060 (“the ’060 9 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Method and Apparatus for 10 Management of Multimedia Assets.” The invention disclosed by the ’060 Patent 11 relates to a multimedia system including components to allow input, information 12 retrieval, and display. The claims of the ’060 Patent cover, by way of example 13 only, a method of interfacing components in a multimedia system comprising 14 defining a generalized protocol, invoking a search request, communicating 15 between at least two components, returning a search response, invoking a retrieval 16 request, and invoking a transmit request. 17 37. On April 3, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,212,527 (“the ’527 18 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Method and Apparatus for Cataloging 19 Multimedia Data.” The invention disclosed by the ’527 Patent relates to 20 cataloging of data such as multimedia data. The claims of the ’527 Patent cover, 21 by way of example only, a method of managing the quality of a data collection of 22 multimedia data comprising reviewing multimedia data, creating a quality event, 23 and associating the quality event with input data. 24 25 26 -11- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 13 of 137 Page ID #:1217
1 38. On April 15, 2003, United States Patent No. 6,549,911 (“the ’911 2 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Method and Apparatus for 3 Cataloguing Multimedia Data.” The invention disclosed by the ’911 Patent relates 4 to cataloguing of data such as multimedia data. The claims of the ’911 Patent 5 cover, by way of example only, a method of cataloguing multimedia data 6 comprising specifying a description, creating a catalogue element, creating a 7 plurality of attributes and attribute elements, and creating a plurality of 8 relationships. 9 39. On July 17, 2003, United States Patent No. 6,581,071 (“the ’071 10 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Surveying System and Method.” The 11 invention disclosed by the ’071 Patent relates to a survey system wherein multiple 12 versions of a survey may be defined and data from the survey versions may be 13 maintained as cohesive data. Each survey may comprise different sets of 14 questions and different types of answers. The claims of the ’071 Patent cover, by 15 way of example only, a survey method comprising obtaining a schema, obtaining 16 a definition, and capturing responses. 17 40. On June 3, 2003, United States Patent No. 6,574,638 (“the ’638 18 Patent”) was duly and legally issued for a “Surveying System and Method.” The 19 invention disclosed by the ’638 Patent relates to a survey system wherein multiple 20 versions of a survey may be defined and data from the survey versions may be 21 maintained as cohesive data. Each survey may comprise a different set of 22 questions and different types of answers. The claims of the ’638 Patent cover, by 23 way of example only, associating multimedia data with surveying data comprising 24 obtaining an association, searching survey data, and identifying multimedia data. 25 26 -12- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 14 of 137 Page ID #:1218
1 V. HISTORY OF THE INVENTION 2 41. The Asserted Patents are currently owned by the University of 3 Southern California and Preservation has obtained a license with all necessary 4 rights from the Shoah Foundation of the University of Southern California (the 5 “Shoah Foundation”) to enforce these patents against Defendants in its own name. 6 The Asserted Patents are fully incorporated herein by reference with the same 7 force and effect as if they were given in full text. In the mid-1990s, Steven 8 Spielberg founded the Shoah Foundation to preserve the testimonies of the then 9 living 50,000 holocaust survivors before their first-hand accounts of the Holocaust 10 were lost as that generation passed away. The Shoah Foundation’s impetus was 11 to gather, catalog, and make available for access thousands of video testimonies. 12 In doing so, the Shoah Foundation sought to build one of the largest video 13 libraries in the world comprising nearly 52,000 video testimonies in 32 languages 14 from 56 countries. 15 42. In 1996, there was no multimedia system that could handle the large 16 volume of video testimonies collected and maintained by the Shoah Foundation, 17 so Samuel Gustman, CTO of the Shoah Foundation and an inventor of the 18 Patents•in-Suit, set out to design one. Gustman created a multimedia distribution 19 system that incorporated a unique distributed modular infrastructure and advanced 20 techniques for indexing, accessing, distributing, and surveying multimedia data. 21 Hundreds of researchers participated in the implementation of a working system 22 over a multi-year period. It was important to the system was the need to interact 23 and be compatible with various portals at 199 sites in 39 countries and 12 24 different languages. 25 26 -13- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 15 of 137 Page ID #:1219
1 43. Gustman eventually created a multimedia distribution system that 2 incorporated a unique distributed modular infrastructure and advanced techniques 3 for indexing, accessing, distributing, surveying multimedia data that was 4 compatible with disparate technologies of multimedia components. The 5 inventions underlying Gustman’s system were captured in 11 U.S. patents that 6 make up the Patents-in-Suit. Today, these inventions are used to enhance the 7 consumer multimedia streaming experience in nearly every major internet 8 company. 9 VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY IN VIEW OF PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER 35 USC SECTION 101 10 11 44. The Asserted Patents and claims are not merely directed to the basic 12 idea of a digital library, a card catalogue, or even a multimedia system. Rather, 13 these patents reflect the Shoah Foundation’s real-life, multi-year efforts, involving 14 hundreds of researchers to actually create and implement a well-functioning, large 15 scale multimedia system across multiple platforms and in the face of developing 16 technology. 17 45. Early multimedia systems suffered from technical problems that were 18 simply not present with brick and mortar document libraries and card catalogues 19 such as: 20 1. Interoperability between components of differing platforms or computer 21 systems; 22 2. Effective content-based searching of non-textual video material and the 23 inability to search within a video; 24 3. Inadequate an inefficient data structures and system architectures; 25 26 -14- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 16 of 137 Page ID #:1220
1 4. Long query response times, prohibitive system processing consumption 2 and bandwidth consumption. 3 46. The Patents-in-Suit describe and claim several specific technological 4 improvements to address these real-life technical problems in early prior art 5 multimedia delivery systems. These specific implementation features embody 6 inventive concepts that were unconventional for the time period and can be 7 grouped into at least six categories of distinctly claimed non-abstract 8 technological improvements: 9 1. The Distributed Architecture Claims for addressing compatibility and 10 replacement problems associated with the closed architecture of early 11 prior art multimedia systems; 12 2. The API Protocol Interface Claims for Interfacing Multimedia 13 Components of a Distributed Architecture to address compatibility and 14 inoperability problems; 15 3. The Catalogue Data Structure Claims for Searching Multimedia; 16 4. The Phrase Data Structure Claims for Searching within a Video 17 5. The Search Query and Search Result Caching Claims for Preprocessing 18 Search Results; and 19 6. The Video Caching Claims for Efficient Video Delivery 20 47. The essence of the inquiry into whether a claim is improperly directed 21 into an abstract idea is whether the limitations as a whole are merely directed to a 22 desired, but abstract, result or whether they specify a particular technological 23 means to achieve such result, with the former being an improper abstract idea and 24 the latter being a patent-eligible technological improvement. Importantly, the 25 26 -15- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 17 of 137 Page ID #:1221
1 claimed solutions of the patents in suit are not merely directed to abstract results, 2 but rather are directed to specific architectures, multimedia components, 3 interfaces and protocols, data structures, processing steps and other features that 4 represent non-abstract technical improvements that provide the technological 5 means to achieve a solution to a technological problem. Similarly, the non- 6 abstract improvements specified by the ordered combination of the claims also 7 contain one or more non-conventional, non-routine and non-well understood 8 inventive concepts that also confer patent eligibility. 9 A. DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE CLAIMS FOR INTEROPERABILITY 10 11 48. At the time of invention, development of multimedia distribution 12 systems was in its infancy. Transmission of video and multimedia over existing 13 computer communication networks, including the Internet, struggled with 14 bandwidth, system resource processing, and compatibility issues that impeded the 15 development of early multimedia distribution systems. At the time of the patents 16 in suit, multimedia protocols for transmission over the internet had not yet been 17 developed. Indeed, in 1998, two years after the filing of the ’014 Patent, 18 researchers still recognized the need for development of multimedia protocols 19 over the internet: 20 So the design of real-time protocols for multimedia networking 21 becomes imperative before the multimedia age comes. 22 … 23 [T]he Internet is growing exponentially. The well established LAN 24 and WAN technologies based on IP protocol suite connect bigger and 25 26 -16- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 18 of 137 Page ID #:1222
1 bigger networks all over the world to the Internet. In fact, Internet has 2 become the platform of most networking activities. This is the 3 primary reason to develop multimedia protocols over Internet. 4 Another benefit of running multimedia over IP is that users can have 5 integrated data and multimedia service over one single network, 6 without investing on another network hardware and building the 7 interface between two networks. 8 Liu, Multimedia Over IP: RSVP, RTP, RTCP, RTSP, http://www.cse.wustl.edu/ 9 ~jain/cis788-97/ftp/ip_multimedia/#multi1 (emphasis added). 10 Metasearch engines, which are gateway linking users to multiple and 11 distributed search engines, would also benefit from a multimedia 12 archive description scheme. The operation of current metasearch 13 engines is significantly restrained by the interface limitations of 14 current search engines[.] 15 U.S. Patent No. 6,941,325 titled “Multimedia archive description scheme” to 16 Benitez et al. at 1:52-56 (emphasis added) (citing the ’911 Patent as a reference). 17 49. As late as 2007, nearly a decade after the original filing date of the 18 Patents-in-Suit, the wide spread use of proprietary protocols is described as a key 19 obstacle to the distribution of video via the Internet and the development of non- 20 proprietary protocols for multimedia is lauded as a significant advancement: 21 By the mid-2000s the vast majority of the Internet traffic was HTTP- 22 based and content delivery networks (CDNs) were increasingly being 23 used to ensure delivery of popular content to large audiences. 24 Streaming media, with its hodgepodge of proprietary protocols - all 25 26 -17- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 19 of 137 Page ID #:1223
1 mostly based on the far less popular UDP - suddenly found itself 2 struggling to keep up with demand. In 2007 a company named 3 Move Networks introduced a technology and service that once 4 again would change the industry: HTTP-based adaptive 5 streaming. 6 Instead of relying on proprietary streaming protocols and leaving 7 users at the mercy of the internet bandwidth gods, Move 8 Networks used the dominant HTTP protocol to deliver media in 9 small file chunks while utilizing the player application to monitor 10 download speeds and request chunks of varying quality (size) in 11 response to changing network conditions. The technology had a 12 huge impact because it allowed streaming media to be distributed far 13 and wide using CDNs (over standard HTTP) and cached for 14 efficiency, while at the same time eliminating annoying buffering and 15 connectivity issues for customers. 16 Zambelli, A History of Media Streaming and the Future of Connected TV, 17 available at https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/ 18 2013/mar/01/history-streaming-future-connected-tv (emphasis added). 19 50. At the time of the filing of the Patents in Suit, the management and 20 transmission of multimedia and video over wide scale networks, particularly the 21 Internet, was not conventional or routine practice among generic computer 22 systems. Special purpose computer software or hardware components that are not 23 part of a generic computer programming, such as an indexing server, storage 24 manager, or an archive server as well as media protocols, required to implement 25 26 -18- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 20 of 137 Page ID #:1224
1 this functionality were just being developed or still in development in single 2 component prior art systems. 3 i. The Distributed Architecture Claims Are Directed to Compatibility and Interchangeability Problems Caused by the 4 Closed Architecture of Prior Art Multimedia Systems 5 51. The Distributed Architecture Claims provide a “particular 6 arrangement” of server components (software and/or hardware) and data 7 structures in a specific relational architecture that provides a solution to 8 compatibility problems that were caused by the closed architecture of the then 9 state of the art multimedia delivery systems—and they therefore represent non- 10 abstract technological improvements to existing prior art multimedia systems. 11 The patent specification extensively details the problems with existing technology 12 that its invention intended to address. Although a few basic, but limited, 13 commercial multimedia systems were available in 1996, the available multimedia 14 systems used a closed architecture that hardwired (by software design or 15 physically) the various multimedia components and functions into a single 16 multimedia component or proprietary system and ran on a single platform. These 17 existing prior art multimedia management systems merged the functionality of a 18 multimedia system into a single component, thereby making it impossible to
5 19 separate the merged system into discrete components. 4F The patent specification 20 criticizes prior art for its use of a closed architecture and proprietary interfaces 21 that prevent interchangeability of multimedia components: 22 23
24 5 Some of the available commercial multimedia management systems and their 25 limitations and drawbacks are described in columns 1 to 4 of the ’014 Patent. 26 -19- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 21 of 137 Page ID #:1225
1 Current multimedia systems attempt to provide some… of the 2 components described in FIG. 1A. However, the components 3 provided by these systems are merged to form a single component 4 thereby making it impossible to separate the merged components 5 into the discrete components described in FIG. 1A. 6 ’014 Patent, 1:39-43 (emphasis added). 7 [N]one of the systems provide viable options for each of the 8 multimedia components identified in FIG. 1A. All of the systems 9 merge the components identified in FIG. 1A into a single, 10 component that makes it impossible to replace one of the 11 components. Further, by combining the components into a single 12 component, each system must run on a single hardware platform. 13 Further, there is no vendor-independent interface available to integrate 14 components from different vendors to construct a optimum 15 multimedia system. 16 ’014 Patent, 3:38-47 (emphasis added). The specification of the ’014 Patent 17 further describes several of these prior art systems and their deficiencies. It 18 distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art by criticizing the lack of 19 separable multimedia components (software or hardware) and non-proprietary 20 interfaces between the components: 21 A pre-packaged system having interconnected system components 22 with hardwired, proprietary interconnections is illustrated in FIG. 23 1F. Such a system is provided by Cinebase. System 178 includes a 24 component formed by method player 182, tertiary storage manager 25 26 -20- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 22 of 137 Page ID #:1226
1 184, archive server 186, index server 188, and client 190. There is no 2 clear delineation between components. Further, there are no clearly 3 defined lines of communication between the components. 4 Component interconnections are hardwired, and it is therefore 5 impossible to substitute components that can communicate using 6 the existing connections for the existing components. There is no 7 ability to split the component into discrete components such that 8 replacement component can be substituted for one of the existing 9 components. Further, it is impossible to split the combined 10 component into separate components that can run on multiple 11 hardware platforms. The combined component offers a weak 12 solution. 13 ’014 Patent, 3:15-31 (emphasis added). 14 52. The ’014 Patent describes a multimedia management system provided 15 by Hewlett Packard that includes an index server and a client with built-in player 16 functionality, but does not include a method player component: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -21- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 23 of 137 Page ID #:1227
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ’014 Patent, Fig. 1A. Accordingly, this design is only viable with Hewlett 12 Packard’s system and is incompatible in a network that may use different clients 13 or computers. Furthermore, the ’014 Patent specifically criticizes the system’s 14 closed architecture where the hardware or software components are formed into a 15 single proprietary system that prevents the interchangeability of system 16 components: 17 The archive server and tertiary storage management subsystems are 18 integrated in intermedia server 118. Client and method player 114 19 and index server 116 are interconnected with intermedia server 118 to 20 form a single component. The interconnections are hardwired such 21 that it is impossible to replace one of the existing components. 22 ’014 Patent, 2:7-12 (emphasis added). 23 53. Similarly, the ’014 Patent describes another existing multimedia 24 management system by IBM. This system, like Hewlett Packard’s, “offers index 25 26 -22- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 24 of 137 Page ID #:1228
1 server 148 (e.g., Oracle’s DBMS), archive server 146, and tertiary storage 2 manager 144 in an integrated system.” ’014 Patent, 2:41-44. IBM’s system “does 3 not include a client or method player” and thus is again incompatible in a network 4 that may use different clients or computers: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ’014 Patent, 2:53-55, Fig. 1D. Like the Hewlett Packard system, the ’014 Patent 17 criticizes the IBM system for merging the component into a single proprietary 18 system thereby creating a closed architecture: 19 The system is built to run in a mainframe environment using IBM 20 hardware. Further, the system does not include a client or method 21 player. Index server 148, tertiary storage manager 144 and archive 22 server 146 are combined as a single component such that it is 23 impossible to replace one or more of them. 24 ’014 Patent, 2:52-57 (emphasis added). 25 26 -23- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 25 of 137 Page ID #:1229
1 54. Another multimedia management system described by the ’014 2 Patent, provided by Informix “includes kernel 170 that acts as a hub.” Id., 2:60- 3 62. The ’014 Patent plainly states Informix’s system “runs in a single hardware 4 platform” and is once again incompatible in a network that may use different 5 clients or computers: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ’014 Patent, 3:8-9, Fig. 1E. Again, the patent specifically criticizes the use of a 14 proprietary interface to form a single proprietary system: 15 Thus, another component must communicate with the index via a 16 proprietary interface provided by a data blade (e.g., data blades 160A- 17 160H). Data blades 160H, 160B, and 160D provide a proprietary 18 interface to method player 162, tertiary storage manager 164, and 19 archive server 166, respectively. The components provided by this 20 system are merged to form a single component that use a 21 proprietary interface to communicate. The component 22 combination runs in a single hardware platform 174. Data 23 dictionary 172 can become large and cumbersome. In addition, a fault 24 that occurs in one data blade that is included in data dictionary 172 25 26 -24- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 26 of 137 Page ID #:1230
1 causes a fault for the entire system. This system construction is not 2 fault tolerant and is unacceptable for a production environment. 3 ’014 Patent, 3:2-15 (emphasis added). Again, the Patents-in-Suit further criticize 4 this prior art for its use of a closed architecture using proprietary protocols. 5 A multimedia system having a hub is illustrated in FIG. 1C. Such a 6 system is provided by Oracle. The hub is provided by media server 7 130. The system runs on a specific hardware platform (hardware 8 platform 138, an N-Cube hardware platform) and is not portable to 9 other platforms. Media server 130 acts as a hub that uses a 10 proprietary interface to communicate with the other services. 11 Components with which media server 130 can communicate are 12 method player 122, tertiary storage manager 124, and client 120 (via 13 lines 134, 132, and 136, respectively). . . . The component formed by 14 media server 130, method player 122, tertiary storage manager 124, 15 index server 128, archive server 126 and client 120 must run on a 16 single hardware platform, platform 138. Further, while index server 17 128 is a powerful database management system, client 120, archive 18 server 126, method player 122 and tertiary storage 124 offer weak 19 solutions. 20 ’014 Patent, 2:20-38 (emphasis added). 21 22 23 24 25 26 -25- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 27 of 137 Page ID #:1231
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ’014 Patent, Fig. 1C. The patents explain that the “closed architecture” of the 11 merged prior art multimedia systems resulted in compatibility and replacement 12 problems. “This [closed] architecture is disadvantageous for at least two 13 reasons: 1) there is no ability to replace a less capable component with 14 another, more capable component; 2) it forces each system to run on a single 15 hardware platform.” ’014 Patent, 1:44-47. Furthermore, “there is no vendor- 16 independent interface available to integrate components from different vendors to 17 construct a optimum multimedia system” “mak[ing] it impossible to replace one 18 of the components.” ’014 Patent, 3:45-47. Consequently, the prior art system 19 cannot grow in size and capability as needs change. Nor could such closed 20 system incorporate newer faster or more capable components as technology 21 improved without replacing the whole system. Finally, since the systems ran on a 22 “single platform,” these early systems could not be used to distribute the 23 multimedia to clients beyond the propriety clients developed solely for those 24 multimedia systems and were ill-suited for general purpose use on computer 25 26 -26- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 28 of 137 Page ID #:1232
1 networks such as the World Wide Web that required compatibility with disparate 2 media players and clients of various uses on the web. 3 ii. The Distributed Architecture Claims Provide a Particularized Technological Solution to the Compatibility and 4 Interchangeability Problems of Prior Art Systems by Setting Forth an Unconventional Modular Distributed Architecture 5 that Used Specialized Interfaces to Allow Interchangeability Among Platforms and System Components 6 55. The Distributed Architecture Claims solve the compatibility and 7 interchangeability problems of prior art systems identified in the specification by 8 utilizing an unconventional distributed architecture with separable multimedia 9 components (software or hardware) interconnected by unconventional generalized 10 media specific interfaces created to handle media functions that allow for 11 interchangeability and interoperability of system components. 12 56. The Shoah claims implement a specific and unconventional 13 architecture because, in addition to using a generalized API interface using a non- 14 proprietary protocol, the claims distribute the functions of prior multimedia 15 systems into separable components—differing from prior art system that fused 16 (by design) the functions into a single component. Furthermore, the Shoah claims 17 also specify additional limitations to the components including actual data 18 structures (e.g. relationships in the catalogue data structure, additional storage 19 management systems) and sets forth additional functional requirements of the 20 components. Thus, the Shoah patents claim both API interfaces and multimedia 21 components that differed from that of the prior art and the claims as a whole 22 specify a particularized, unconventional solution. 23 57. The limitations of the Distributed Architecture specifically embody 24 this unconventional architecture. For example, ’014 claims 15-20 recite: 25 26 -27- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 29 of 137 Page ID #:1233
1 15. A multimedia system comprising: 2 a browser; 3 a text interface coupled to said browser, said text interface 4 comprising at least one class of methods configured to specify a 5 request for multimedia data; 6 an indexing server coupled to said text interface, said indexing server 7 configured to maintain a catalogue comprising a plurality of 8 catalogue elements associated with a plurality of keywords of said 9 catalogue, said plurality of keywords identifying said multimedia 10 data, said plurality of keywords being interrelated by one or more 11 of associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships; 12 a first media interface coupled to said browser, said interface 13 configured to transmit a set of identifiers (IDs) associated with said 14 multimedia data; 15 an archive server coupled to said media interface, said archive server 16 configured to locate and retrieve said multimedia data using said 17 set of IDs; 18 a second media interface coupled to said browser, said interface 19 configured to transmit said multimedia data associated with said 20 set of IDs; [and] 21 a method player coupled to said second media interface. 22 16. The system of claim 15 wherein said indexing server 23 comprises: 24 a database management system (DBMS); 25 26 -28- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 30 of 137 Page ID #:1234
1 said plurality of catalogue elements coupled to said DBMS; 2 a plurality of attributes and attribute elements coupled to said plurality 3 of catalogue elements. 4 17. The system of claim 15 wherein said text interface is an 5 application programming interface. 6 18. The system of claim 15 wherein said text interface contains 7 operations for querying said plurality of catalogue elements and said 8 plurality of attributes and attribute elements. 9 19. The system of claim 15 further comprising a tertiary storage 10 manager coupled to said archive server. 11 20. The system of claim 19 wherein said tertiary storage manager is a 12 cache manager. 13 Some other claims from additional Patents-in-Suit that embody this 14 architecture are listed without limitation in Appendix A. 15 58. Unlike the prior art systems described above, this claimed architecture 16 was unconventional and non-routine in that it distributed the functions of the 17 multimedia system into multimedia components that can be separated from each 18 other rather than a single merged proprietary component (e.g. a browser, an 19 indexing server, an archive server, and a method player. This allowed functions 20 to be handled by different software components so that when certain functionality 21 improved (e.g., superior indexing server or better media player or a more 22 advanced browser) that functionality could be incorporated without replacing the 23 whole system. 24 25 26 -29- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 31 of 137 Page ID #:1235
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ’014 Patent, Fig. 3. 11 59. Unlike the prior art systems that had “no clear delineation between 12 components” and used proprietary interfaces that could not operate with 13 components outside of the same platform, the claimed invention uses non- 14 proprietary interfaces (depicted as 310, 312 and 315 in Fig. 3 above) to allow for 15 modular software components from different vendors to make up a single modular 16 distributed system. The claimed “media interface,” “interface” and “command 17 interface” of the Distributed Architecture claims are nonproprietary interfaces that 18 require the use of a non-proprietary protocol: 19 The invention is a generalized solution for management of multimedia 20 assets. Generalized interfaces are used between a browser 21 component, indexing server, archive server, tertiary storage manager, 22 and method player components. The generalized interface defines a 23 communication protocol that can be used by any browser, indexing 24 server, archive server, tertiary storage manager, or method player 25 26 -30- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 32 of 137 Page ID #:1236
1 component. Thus, system components supplied by multiple vendors 2 can be interconnected to form a multimedia system that communicates 3 using the generalized interfaces of the invention. 4 ’014 Patent, 4:66-5:8 (emphasis added). Figure 3 of the ’014 Patent depicts this 5 novel architecture. These “media interfaces” were unconventional and non- 6 routine because they were specially adapted for multimedia functions and used a 7 non-proprietary protocol that could be utilized by components of different 8 vendors for multimedia functions. In contrast, the prior art systems did not use 9 generalized interfaces with generalized multimedia interfaces but rather were 10 hardwired (physically or by software design) into a single component using a 11 single platform. 12 60. The patents with Distributed Architecture Claims provide very 13 extensive and specific descriptions including code detailing how to create the 14 communication protocols that comprise examples of the unconventional general 15 interfaces of the invention. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -31- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 33 of 137 Page ID #:1237
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ’014 Patent, Fig. 5 (left); ’060 Patent, 24:13-67 (right). 19 61. As technology improves or system needs change, new software or 20 hardware components can be efficiently swapped in to replace less capable or 21 malfunctioning components. This flexible system not only provides unique 22 advantages over the art and allows the system to grow as technology improves 23 without having to replace the system wholesale, but is particularly suited to 24 network data transmission mediums such as the Internet in which interoperability 25 26 -32- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 34 of 137 Page ID #:1238
1 with different clients and different method players is expected, if not required. 2 Indeed, this technology was specifically important to the Shoah Foundation as it 3 needed to preserve and catalog more than 50,000 video testimonies for the public
6 4 at large. Remarkably, this system remains still in use today. 5F 5 62. For example, the limitations of Claim 16 (which depends on claim 15) 6 of the ’014 Patent (set forth above) specifically embody this architecture by 7 arranging a separable browser, archive server, index server, method player and 8 API interfaces into a particular relational configuration. This claim sets forth an 9 unconventional distributed architecture for a multimedia delivery system that 10 distributes functions among multimedia components that are separable from each 11 other rather than using a single merged component that was in the prior art. 12 Furthermore, these components are connected using API interfaces (denoted by 13 the bold arrows in Fig. 3) that contain non-proprietary protocols that allow 14 components of different vendors to communicate with each other. This unique 15 and inventive modular distributed architecture solves the problems of prior art 16 identified in the specifications of the patents because it allows multimedia 17 components of different vendors to speak to each other and be combined in the 18 same system. Thus, one can replace multimedia components with more capable 19 components as technology develops to create and maintain an optimum system. 20 Furthermore, because a single hardware platform is not required, the system can 21 interact with players of many disparate users and could be suitable for wide 22 spread distribution to users over the web and intranets. Thus, the claims go far 23
24 6 See, e.g., USC Shoah Foundation, Full-Length Testimonies, https://sfi.usc.edu/ 25 full-length-testimonies. 26 -33- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 35 of 137 Page ID #:1239
1 past merely defining an abstract idea and stating apply it on a computer. By 2 reciting this explicit and unique modular architecture, the claims are directed to 3 the means of producing the technological improvement (i.e., an improved 4 architecture of a multimedia system that can interchange specific types of 5 multimedia components) rather than merely claiming a result or desirable 6 outcome on a computer. 7 63. Additional dependent claims recite further structural components that 8 enhance the unconventional architecture. For example, dependent claims 9 specifically recite a database management system (DBMS) (Claim 16), an 10 application programming interface (API) (Claim 17), a tertiary storage manager 11 (Claim 19), a cache manager (Claim 20), a relationship management facility, an 12 access management system, a temporary storage cache, and a local cache. Of 13 these, at least the indexing server, archive server, media interface, database 14 management system, tertiary storage manager, relationship management facility, 15 and access management system are not stock software components found in a 16 generic computer. 17 64. Rather, than merely being addressed to an abstract idea or a 18 describable outcome, the Distributed Architecture Claims are directed to a 19 specific implementation of (software and/or hardware components) of a solution 20 to a problem in the software arts that represents an improvement to computer 21 functionality itself. These claims describe a specific and therefore non-abstract 22 implementation of a system architecture that arranges (1) unconventional, 23 distributed multi-media components in a (2) unconventional distributed 24 architecture using (3) unconventional API generalized interfaces and non- 25 26 -34- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 36 of 137 Page ID #:1240
1 proprietary protocols to improve to the way the computer system itself functions 2 and address shortcoming in designs of prior art multimedia systems. This 3 architecture goes far past the basic idea of a catalog or digital library but rather 4 addresses unique technological problems unrelated to those of a brick and mortar 5 card catalog or textual library. 6 65. Furthermore, the Shoah patents claim both API interfaces and 7 multimedia components in a specific architecture that differed from that of the 8 prior art and the claim limitations individually and as an ordered combination 9 specify an unconventional solution that contains multiple unconventional 10 inventive concepts (set forth above) that render the claims patent eligible. 11 B. API PROTOCOL FOR DISTRIBUTED MULTIMEDIA COMPONENTS CLAIMS 12 13 66. The API Protocol Claims elaborate on the solution of the Distributed 14 Architecture Claims to address the interoperability and compatibility problems 15 described in the specification by describing with more specificity the 16 unconventional interfaces using unconventional non-proprietary protocols for 17 each unconventional distributed multimedia component in the unconventional 18 architecture of Fig. 3 of the patents. The means plus function format or explicit 19 structural limitations of the claims include as limitations specific unconventional 20 commands, algorithms and non-proprietary functions and protocols representing 21 non-abstract inventive concepts found in the very detailed specification of the 22 patents. These claims refer to the same unconventional interfaces and 23 components that were arranged in an unconventional architecture to solve 24 problems with interoperability discussed above. The averments in Section VI(A) 25 26 -35- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 37 of 137 Page ID #:1241
1 above in support of patent eligibility for the Distributed Architecture are 2 reasserted here for the API protocol claims. The case for patent eligibility is even 3 stronger here than the already patent eligible Distributed Architecture claims 4 given the uncommon and unique level of specificity explicitly embodied in the 5 limitations of the claims that specify non-abstract, purely structural technical 6 solutions employing multiple inventive concepts to address the limitations found 7 in existing multimedia systems. 8 C. CATALOGUE AND PHRASE DATA STRUCTURE CLAIMS 9 i. Technical Problems Encountered by the Shoah System 10 67. In the early-mid 1990s, the Shoah Foundation wanted to preserve the 11 testimonies of the 50,000 plus then living holocaust survivors in a searchable 12 video format. A key idea for making the content easily accessible to researchers 13 was that the video would be subdivided and indexed into one-minute increments 14 so that the exact point within a video of interest could be indexed, searched for 15 and located for a given researcher7: 16 17
18 This meant that the system would have to index and be able to retrieve over 19 6,000,000 portions of multimedia content8: 20 21 22 23
24 7 https://sfi.usc.edu/vha/indexing 8 25 http://researchguides.library.syr.edu/vha 26 -36- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 38 of 137 Page ID #:1242
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 68. The large amount of content of the Shoah system required more 12 complex search methods using extensive categorization and uniformity of data 13 content, further requiring more complex data structures to support these 14 information retrieval (“IR”) methods than previously used in conventional prior 15 art systems and requiring search processing and delivery to be more efficient in its 16 uses of system computing resources. At that time, no conventional multimedia 17 system possessed the technological features to accommodate such a large library, 18 nor were such systems capable of providing the advanced indexing and search 19 capabilities necessary to search such a library effectively. This period was long 20 before Netflix or YouTube, and IR techniques for large scale textual document 21 databases were largely experimented or just being developed. These conventional 22 text based IR techniques for term based searching and document representation 23 were simply inadequate for the needs of a large scale video library such as the 24 Shoah system. 25 26 -37- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 39 of 137 Page ID #:1243
1 69. Furthermore, as discussed more extensively above, the Shoah system 2 needed to implement a distributed architecture that used nonproprietary interfaces 3 to integrate multimedia components from different vendors and across platforms. 4 The Shoah system’s complex search systems, large amount of data, and unique 5 distributed architecture employed multiple applications to effectively retrieve and 6 deliver its content—placing more demand on system computing resources. More 7 efficient data structures supporting multiple applications were necessary to 8 address bandwidth and search processing issues associated with a large scale 9 video collection. 10 ii. Conventional Text Based IR Methods and Data Structures Were Inadequate to Support Searching of a Large Scale Video 11 Collection 12 70. Information retrieval in this time period for multimedia systems 13 presented unique problems for the Shoah system that were not present in 14 conventional text-based document retrieval Consequently, conventional 15 document representation in the data structures used by the then existing text base 16 searching were inadequate for robust searching of a large video collection. For 17 example, U.S. Patent No. 7,240,003 titled “Database annotation and retrieval” to 18 Charlesworth et al. at 1:18-23 notes: 19 "Existing database search tools allow the user to search the database 20 using typed keywords. Whilst this is quick and efficient, this type of 21 searching is not suitable for various kinds of databases, such as video 22 or audio databases. 23 The lack of text in videos prevented implementation of conventional document IR 24 techniques or early web-based methods of search. Since there is no native text in 25 26 -38- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 40 of 137 Page ID #:1244
1 a video, one simply cannot match search terms to words found in the content of a 2 video in the same way that one does for a textual document. In order to perform 3 robust term-based searching on a video, an additional “document representation” 4 layer to a traditional word index was needed. For example, a text-based document 5 can be effectively searched by creating a simple index of the words contained in a 6 document. A video has no native text and may not even have spoken words and 7 that the conventional indexes used by these systems would inadequately represent 8 the document for effective term-based searching. Moreover, the lack of native 9 text in the video itself also precluded automated extraction or creation of textual 10 content to create traditional word indices for a large scale system used for 11 conventional searching.9 Without automated extraction of text, the traditional 12 approaches found in early large-scale web search systems employing conventional 13 search methods and data structures could not be practically employed to search a 14 large-scale database of millions of video portions. One simply could not use a 15 crawler or extractor to create usable indices for term-based searching for videos in 16 the same manner as a text based systems such as those used in web search. 17 iii. The Catalogue Claims Describe Structurally a Specific Technical Implementation of a Improved Data Structure that 18 improved the Functioning of the Computer 19 71. The original Shoah system employed significant improvements over 20 prior art systems in creating unconventional data structure and databases directed 21
22 9 Howard Wactlar et al., Intelligent Access to Digital Video: Informedia Project, IEEE Computer, May 1996, at 46, 48 (available at http://ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/ 23 pub2/wactlar_howard_1996_3/wactlar_howard_1996_3.pdf) (“Video information is temporal, spatial, often unstructured, and massive… As a result, a complete 24 solution—automatic extraction of semantic information or a general vision 25 recognition system—is not yet feasible.") (emphasis added). 26 -39- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 41 of 137 Page ID #:1245
1 to addressing the unique technological problems of searching for multimedia data 2 discussed above and to efficiently enable multiple applications in a complex 3 multimedia system by minimizing the need for multiple disparate data structures 4 and databases supporting different applications. 5 72. These improvements are found in the Catalogue Claims. To solve this 6 problem with searching of large-scale video databases, Samuel Gustman created 7 an additional document representation layer housed in a data structure called the 8 “Catalogue.” Rather than term indices just being directed to the textual content of 9 the document or video itself, the Catalogue provide an unconventional document 10 representation layer that is further indexed and searched by other indices: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Unlike the simple word index document representations used by conventional IR, 22 the inventive catalogue element contains multiple storage dimensions (attributes 23 and attribute elements) representing non-textual content of the video as well as 24 specialized external and self-referencing relationships for improving search, 25 26 -40- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 42 of 137 Page ID #:1246
1 bandwidth and processing efficiency. A feature of the claimed “Catalogue” is that 2 it centralizes much of the data into a single data structure that can be housed in a 3 separable indexing server multimedia component for use in the distributed
10 4 architecture of the invention.9F 5 73. This data structure was designed to support several search methods as 6 well as serve as a single repository of data that supports multiple applications 7 found within the distributed architecture of the invention. By designing a flexible, 8 10 For example, ’014 claim 15 requires a catalogue containing key words that 9 identify multimedia data coupled to the text interface that specifies a request for 10 multimedia data. It further requires that the IDs of the supplied multimedia data 11 be used by the remaining components of the system:
12 15. A multimedia system comprising: 13 a browser; a text interface coupled to said browser, said text interface comprising at 14 least one class of methods configured to specify a request for multimedia 15 data;
16 an indexing server coupled to said text interface, said indexing server 17 configured to maintain a catalogue comprising a plurality of catalogue elements associated with a plurality of keywords of said catalogue, said 18 plurality of keywords identifying said multimedia data, said plurality of 19 keywords being interrelated by one or more of associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships; 20 a first media interface coupled to said browser, said interface configured to 21 transmit a set of identifiers (IDs) associated with said multimedia data; an archive server coupled to said media interface, said archive server 22 configured to locate and retrieve said multimedia data using said set of 23 IDs; a second media interface coupled to said browser, said interface configured 24 to transmit said multimedia data associated with said set of IDs; 25 a method player coupled to said second media interface. 26 -41- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 43 of 137 Page ID #:1247
1 central repository for all applications rather than unique databases designed for 2 each application, the system has the benefits of increasing the efficiency and 3 reducing the memory consumption of the system, as well as expanding the search 4 capabilities of the system. 5 74. The claim term “catalogue” is a coined term described in the 6 specification. The specification describes the structure of the catalogue 7 embodiment as having three storage dimensions comprising a catalogue element; 8 attribute and attribute elements: 9 A catalogue is a collection of one or more catalogue elements. An 10 element of a catalogue has one or more attributes. An attribute 11 provides information that can be used to search for, answer questions 12 about, and navigate through a catalogue. An attribute of a catalogue 13 element can be an element that has attributes. A catalogue element 14 attribute that is an element is referred to as an attribute element. 15 Attribute elements and attributes are used to build an index that can be 16 used to facilitate catalogue access. Within a catalogue, smaller 17 catalogues can be created by, for example, querying and user 18 designation. 19 ’014 Patent, 8:64-9:8. Fig.4A depicts a catalogue with catalogue elements, 20 attributes and attribute elements as well as pointers between catalogue elements: 21 22 23 24 25 26 -42- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 44 of 137 Page ID #:1248
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 75. A “catalogue element” refers to a data structure about a specific data 20 type (types, keywords, persons, segments etc.) or multimedia (whole or portion of 21 a video) that is accessible by an index. ’014 Patent, 8:10-35; See Fig. 4A. An 22 attribute is contained within the catalogue element and contains information about 23 the given catalogue element. Id. An attribute element represents a further 24 elaboration of data relevant to a given attribute. Typical attributes include 25 26 -43- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 45 of 137 Page ID #:1249
1 segment references; phrase references; person references; type references; 2 keyword references and other associations. The catalogue elements are 3 interrelated with each other with pointers or references. 4 76. Important to this unconventional structure and a difference with 5 conventional data representation of video and other files is the fact that each 6 catalogue element represents a modular datum component that can be combined 7 through relationships (e.g. pointers) to represent a particular video. See Fig. 4A 8 and B of the ‘014 patent. A particular video is represented by the interrelation of 9 various catalogue elements. For example, a video portion can be catalogued by a 10 phrase identifying a particular portion of video. This phrase may be associated 11 with a combination of type, person, keyword, and segment catalogue elements to 12 create an efficient document representation of the video. The attributes of the 13 representation may be efficiently searched by the novel search algorithms of the 14 system. These storage structures contain among other things structured data that 15 could be used to locate multimedia in a file which otherwise does not contain any 16 text—a problem uniquely associated with retrieval of multimedia files as opposed 17 to documents. Some other claims from additional Patents-in-Suit that reflect the 18 structure of the claimed catalogue including the three storage dimensions and 19 interconnection are listed without limitation in Appendix B. It should be noted 20 that the claims listed in the Appendices herein vary significantly in scope (and 21 specificity) and each claim contains different relevant features for a 101 analysis 22 and are not representative of each other. Each Appendix lists some claims that 23 bear limitations that vary in specificity and scope related to a given improvement 24 25 26 -44- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 46 of 137 Page ID #:1250
1 discussed here but the dependents specify more relevant specific structure for 2 purposes of a 101 analysis than the independents. 3 77. The Catalogue was also coupled to a relationship management and 4 cataloguing facility that allowed modification of the data and addition to the 5 relationships stored in the system so as to address the flexibility needs of multiple 6 applications and general interfaces. ’495 Patent, 14:52-64. 7 78. Another key unconventional feature of a catalogue element in the 8 disclosed embodiment is that it contains unconventional self-referential 9 relationships (e.g. pointers or references) to other catalogue elements so that more 10 efficient retrieval and the reduction of data structures could be had. Generally, the 11 system employed three kinds of relationships: associative; whole-part and 12 inheritance relationships. ’495 Patent, 13:48-62. These relationships are 13 integrated into the specific search query algorithms of the system and the interface 14 protocols between multimedia components so that specific catalogue elements and
11 15 their attributes and attributes could be efficiently retrieved. 10F 16 17
18 11 For example, ’014 claims 16-18 recite: 19 16. The system of claim 15 wherein said indexing server comprises: a database management system (DBMS); 20 said plurality of catalogue elements coupled to said DBMS; 21 a plurality of attributes and attribute elements coupled to said plurality of catalogue elements. 22 17. The system of claim 15 wherein said text interface is an application 23 programming interface. 18. The system of claim 15 wherein said text interface contains operations 24 for querying said plurality of catalogue elements and said plurality of 25 attributes and attribute elements. 26 -45- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 47 of 137 Page ID #:1251
1 79. For example, one kind of relationship will associate two different 2 keywords. By use of the catalogue attributes a search will not only retrieve those 3 catalogue elements of the specified keyword but also catalogue elements 4 containing keywords of the associated keyword. ’014 Patent, 15:9-23. Whole-part 5 and/or inheritance relationships allowed for an expanded retrieval set by not only 6 retrieving catalogue elements containing the relevant keyword but also retrieving 7 portions of multimedia data that are part of a given catalogue element that does 8 not contain the keyword or other catalogue elements that are of the same type or 9 made by the same person that lack the keyword. ‘495 Patent, 40-50. 10 80. These relationships comprise self-referential relationships to the 11 catalogue in that they refer to other catalogue elements within the same catalogue 12 data structure. ’495 Patent, 11:15-17 (“In the preferred embodiment, catalogue 13 and attribute elements are interrelated. Relationships are formed between two or 14 more catalogue elements within the catalogue data structure (e.g., keyword to 15 type, marked in green, below): 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -46- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 48 of 137 Page ID #:1252
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The Catalogue embodiment also has self-relationships where a given catalogue 21 element can refer internally to other elements within the same catalogue element. 22 For example, a keyword can refer to another entry within the same keyword 23 catalogue element or a type can refer to another type instance (e.g., keywords to 24 other keywords; types to other types, marked in red above). Thus, the 25 26 -47- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 49 of 137 Page ID #:1253
1 unconventional claimed catalogue using self-referencing relationships to internal 2 elements of the catalogue allows many kinds of searches involving attributes that 3 can be efficiently processed with less data tables and replications of queries on the 4 catalogue—further reducing the bandwidth and processing resource consumption 5 of the distributed network connecting multiple applications. 6 The self-referring relationships of the claimed catalogue are explicitly reflected in 7 limitations of the claims. For example, claim 2 of ‘495 patent provides: 8 1. In a computer system, a method of cataloguing multimedia data 9 comprising the steps of: 10 creating a catalogue comprising a plurality of elements and relationships 11 between said plurality of elements, said plurality of elements identifying 12 data associated with said multimedia data, said data including keywords 13 interrelated via one or more associative, whole-part and inheritance 14 relationships, and other multimedia data associated with said multimedia 15 data [self referencing key word to key word relationships]; 16 specifying a description for a portion of said multimedia data; 17 creating a catalogue element in said catalogue, said catalogue element 18 containing a pointer to said portion of said multimedia data; and 19 creating for said catalogue element a pointer to at least one of said 20 keywords, said at least one of said keywords containing a plurality of 21 pointers to a set of elements in said catalogue interrelated to said at least one 22 of said keywords via said one or more associative, whole-part and 23 inheritance relationships, and creating for said catalogue element a plurality 24 25 26 -48- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 50 of 137 Page ID #:1254
1 of pointers to elements in said catalogue that identify other multimedia data 2 associated with said portion of multimedia data. 3 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of creating a pointer to at least 4 one of said keywords further comprises the steps of: identifying references 5 to said at least one of said keywords in said description; and creating said 6 pointer to at least one of said keywords for said catalogue element [further 7 structural description of self referencing relationships]. 8 81. Another example is ’495 patent, claim 22 (which depends on claims 9 13, 19, and 20) that claims the (1) basic catalogue data structure (2) usage of the 10 attribute and attribute elements of the catalogue (3) self-referencing relationships 11 between catalogue elements; (4) keyword associations with catalogue elements 12 and other keywords (self-reference) ; (5) phrase element data structure directed to 13 portion of multimedia; (6) pointer to specific storage location; (7) modification of 14 the data structure and other features discussed below: 15 13. An article of manufacture comprising: 16 a computer usable medium having computer readable program code 17 embodied therein for cataloguing multimedia data using a general indexing 18 structure, the computer readable program code in said article of manufacture 19 comprising; 20 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create a 21 catalogue [coined term referring to the catalogue data represention 22 described in specification] comprising a plurality of elements and 23 relationships between said plurality of elements [self referencing internal 24 relationships and catalogue elements], said plurality of elements 25 26 -49- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 51 of 137 Page ID #:1255
1 identifying data associated with said multimedia data, said data including 2 keywords interrelated via one or more associative, whole-part and 3 inheritance relationships, and other multimedia data associated with said 4 multimedia data [self-references between keywords within the keyword 5 catalogue element]; 6 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to specify a 7 description for a portion of said multimedia data [description for phrase 8 data structure for a portion of multimedia]; 9 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create a 10 catalogue element in said catalogue, said catalogue element containing a 11 pointer to said portion of said multimedia data [limitations directed to 12 phrase data structure catalogue element including pointer]; and 13 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create 14 for said catalogue element a pointer to at least one of said keywords, said at 15 least one of said keywords containing a plurality of pointers to a set of 16 elements in said catalogue interrelated to said at least one of said keywords 17 via said one or more associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships, 18 and creating for said catalogue element a plurality of pointers to elements in 19 said catalogue that identify other multimedia data associated with said 20 portion of multimedia data [self referencing internal relationships of the 21 catalogue (e.g., segment structure)]. 22 14. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of retrieving further comprises 23 the steps of: searching cache for said portion of said multimedia data; 24 25 26 -50- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 52 of 137 Page ID #:1256
1 retrieving said portion of multimedia data into said cache from permanent 2 storage, if said portion of multimedia data is resident on permanent storage 3 and is not found in said cache [using the catalog for efficient catching of 4 portions]. 5 19. The article of manufacture of claim 13 further comprising computer 6 readable program code configured to cause a computer to delete said 7 catalogue element. 8 20. The article of manufacture of claim 19 wherein said program code 9 configured to cause a computer to delete further comprises: 10 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to identify 11 said at least one of said keywords, 12 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to reassign 13 said at least one of Said keywords when Said at least one of Said keywords 14 can be reassigned; 15 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to delete 16 said at least one of Said keywords when Said at least one of Said keywords 17 cannot be reassigned; 18 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to delete 19 said catalogue element. 20 22. The article of manufacture of claim 20 wherein said program code 21 configured to cause a computer to delete further comprises: 22 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to locate a 23 plurality of attributes and attribute elements [searching of attribute and 24 attribute element storage dimensions], said second plurality of attributes 25 26 -51- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 53 of 137 Page ID #:1257
1 and attribute elements are related to said at least one of said keywords, 2 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to reassign 3 said plurality of attributes and attribute elements when said plurality of 4 attributes and attribute elements can be reassigned; 5 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to delete 6 said plurality of attributes [above and below references allow modification 7 of data structure] and attribute elements when said plurality of attributes 8 and attribute elements cannot be reassigned; 9 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to delete 10 said plurality of attributes and attribute elements. 11 Some other claims from additional Patents-in-Suit that reflect the structure of a 12 catalogue with self-referencing pointers are listed without limitation in Appendix 13 C. 14 82. Another type of self-referencing relationship of the catalogue is the 15 use of an unconventional segment container catalogue element. Segments are 16 container catalogue elements that contains list of references to other catalog 17 elements and therefore are self-referential. See infra at Section VI(D)(iii) for an 18 extended discussion of segment and container elements. Some claims that reflect 19 self-referential relationships involving segment containers are listed without 20 limitation in Appendix D. 21 83. Still further, the catalogue data structure with its storable attributes 22 and attribute elements (in combination with the claimed relationships) is designed 23 to enable the specific search algorithms disclosed in the patents. Unlike 24 conventional systems, this unconventional data structure included specific 25 26 -52- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 54 of 137 Page ID #:1258
1 multimedia data that reflect non-textual content of the video such as associated (1) 2 “key words” associated with the video (2) type classifications, (3) identification of 3 segment containers grouping related content; (4) segments attributes associating 4 catalogue elements with prior searches; (5) person associations; (6) testimony 5 attributes; (7) general description of the content of the video; (8) key word to key 6 word associations; (9) cache identification; (10) associative; inheritance and 7 whole part relationships; and (11) phrase elements. Thus, the Catalogue allowed 8 for much more advanced searching based upon several categories of information 9 that was not explicitly contained with the video text to address the unique 10 problems of video searching. These algorithms address limitations in 11 conventional systems by improving search capability using improved document 12 representation structures over prior art systems and allowing expanded search 13 results based upon associative; whole part; and inheritance relationships— 14 structures not in conventional use or understanding. 15 84. The claimed catalogue with its modular catalogue elements, attributes, 16 and attribute elements document representation are also necessary to support the 17 non-proprietary interfaces of the invention that query the catalogue to search, 18 retrieve and display multimedia. For example, the Browser-Indexing Server 19 interface routines disclosed in the ’537, ’831 Patent and ’014 patent use the 20 attributes and attribute elements stored in the catalogue to search for data in the 21 indexing server and then retrieve the data using the archive server from storage, 22 for example: 23 24 25 26 -53- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 55 of 137 Page ID #:1259
1 ’014 Patent, 27:3-10; 21:29-43. Thus, the specific routine references the 2 following attributes and attribute elements including testimonyID, phraseID and 3 phrase data structures. 4 5 6 7 8 85. These routines enabled by the Catalogue are part of the non- 9 proprietary interfaces and protocols disclosed in the specification that are 10 necessary to implement the open and distributed architecture containing multiple 11 applications discussed above with the Distributed Architecture claims. The means 12 plus function claims directed to interfaces specifically claim as limitations the use 13 of the attribute, attribute elements, segment and phrases of the claimed catalogue. 14 The design of the Catalogue improves the limitations in the prior art in that they 15 can be used to implement the unconventional nonproprietary protocols disclosed 16 in the specification and incorporated in the claims. The catalogue enabling these 17 interfaces addresses the interoperability problems in the art between applications 18 of multiple vendors that are discussed at length in the ’014 Patent, ‘537 patent and 19 ‘831 patents as well as reduces the number of data structures used by the multiple 20 applications of the invention. 21 86. The unconventional specific structures of the Catalogue with the 22 features described above represent technical improvements to conventional data 23 structures used in multimedia systems and electronic search systems. 24 Consolidation of the features described above in a given claimed catalogue data 25 26 -54- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 56 of 137 Page ID #:1260
1 structure reduces the number of necessary data structures that have to be stored 2 and referenced. This improves the art by reducing memory requirements, system 3 resource and bandwidth consumption, and the time necessary to process the 4 complex search algorithms described in the specification. Also, the claimed 5 relationships contained in the system enable multi-faceted complex searches that 6 reduce the number of times the interface must query catalogue -again freeing up 7 bandwidth, reducing processing time and the number of times the indexing server 8 must be accessed. Each of the above described and claimed features when 9 considered within the ordered combination of the claims define an unconventional 10 data structure that constitutes an inventive concept that renders patent eligibility. 11 iv. The Specification Confirms that the Claimed Catalogue is an Unconventional, Non-Routine and Not Well Understood 12 Technical Improvement to the Data Structures of the Prior Art Multimedia Systems 13 87. The Shoah patents’ conception in the early 1990s occurred during the 14 early development of multimedia delivery systems and the data structure design of 15 those systems. Only a few systems with limited capabilities were in production 16 by the time of filing of the application. The basic catalogue document 17 representation layer as well as other more specific claimed features of the 18 12 catalogue discussed above11F were not conventional or well understood activities in 19 20 12 21 For example, the catalogue includes specific multimedia data that reflect non- textual content of the video such as associated (1) “key words” associated with the 22 video (2) type classifications, (3) identification of segment containers grouping related content; (4) segments attributes associating catalogue elements with prior 23 searches; (5) person associations; (6) testimony attributes; (7) general description of the content of the video; (8) key word to key word associations; (9) cache 24 identification and storage locations; (10) associative; inheritance and whole part 25 relationships; and (11) phrase elements. 26 -55- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 57 of 137 Page ID #:1261
1 routine practice within existing multimedia systems and represent inventive 2 concepts that support patent eligibility. Existing systems lacked the basic 3 catalogue documentation layer searched by word indices as well as the unique 4 other claimed features concerning the claimed catalogue. 5 88. The specifications of the Patents-in-Suit extensively discuss the 6 problems and limitations that the claimed invention intended to address as well as 7 the state of art for existing multimedia systems. For example, columns 1 to 3 of 8 the ’495 Patent discusses 8 references (U.S. Pat. No. 5,414,644 to Seaman; U.S. 9 Pat. No. 5,404,506 to Fujisawa; U.S. Pat. No. 5,241,671 to Reed; U.S. Pat. No. 10 5,123,088 to Kasahara; U.S. Pat. No. 5,210, 868 to Shimada; U.S. Pat. No. 11 5,278,946 to Shimada; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,493,677 to Balogh) concerning prior 12 art search methods, data structures and applications. It first describes the problem 13 with existing systems in their inability to search based upon the content of the 14 video (a problem that the Catalogue document representation was designed to 15 address): 16 A problem with prior art multimedia systems is an inability to search 17 and retrieve multimedia data…Other than the extent to which the file 18 name identifies content, the file System does not provide the ability to 19 retrieve multimedia information based on the content of the data. 20 ’495 patent, 1:24-30. Then ’495 Patent describes the lack of a Catalogue in 21 existing systems: 22 The search capabilities in the patents identified above do not provide 23 an ability to catalogue multimedia data …There is no ability to create 24 a general catalogue and index for searching a catalogue that can be 25 26 -56- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 58 of 137 Page ID #:1262
1 used for the storage and retrieval of multimedia data by multiple 2 applications. 3 Id. at 2:38-47. 4 89. Numerous publications cited by the prosecution history or known in 5 the art confirm these technical limitations of the art. 6 “In order to make the best use of a computer's ability to manipulate digital 7 audio and audio-video recordings, it is desirable to have some way to 8 perform content searches. Currently, the ability to perform content 9 searching is significantly limited or non- existent.” 10 U.S. Patent No. 5,794,249 titled “Audio/video retrieval system” to Orsolini et al. 11 at 1:21-25. 12 Existing database technology is not designed to manage digital video as 13 “first class” media. By this we mean that very little support is available 14 for indexing and querying video based on its content…The systems that 15 retrieve images or video data based on feature components make extensive 16 use of on-the-fly image processing techniques. These techniques are not 17 suitable for very large collections of video, as they require a great deal of 18 computational power and processing time. 19 Ahanger, G., Benson, D., and Little, T., Video Query Formation, Proc. Storage 20 and Retrieval for Images and Video Databases III, IS&T/SPIE Symposium on 21 Electronic Imaging Science & Technology, vol. 2420, pp. 280-291, available at 22 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.477.5252&rep=rep1&t 23 ype=pdf. 24 “[T]ext based search tools are the predominate search tools available on the 25 26 -57- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 59 of 137 Page ID #:1263
1 internet today. Even if text based search algorithms are enhanced to examine 2 files for file type and, therefore, be able to detect whether a file is a audio, 3 video or other multimedia file, little if any information is available about 4 the content of the file beyond its file type.” 5 U.S. Patent No. 5,903,892 titled “Indexing of media content on a network” to 6 Hoffert et al. at 2:8-14. 7 "While there are efficient search engines for text documents today, there are 8 no satisfactory systems for retrieving visual information." 9 Chang et al., VideoQ: an automated content based video search system using 10 visual cues, Proc. of the Fifth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 11 313-324, available at https://www2.cs.ucy.ac.cy/~nicolast/courses/cs422/ 12 ReadingProjects/videoq.pdf 13 90. ’014 Patent, col. 1-4 further discusses five existing systems (Hewlett 14 Packard, Oracle, IBM, Informix, and Cinebase) in detail (illustrated in Fig. 1B- 15 1F) and notes that these systems lacked the claimed Catalogue and features: 16 None of these systems illustrated in FIGS. 1B-1F provide a general 17 cataloguing capability that can catalogue any type of multimedia data. 18 ’014 Patent, 3:35-36. The ’014 patent further discusses U.S. Pat. No. 5,192,999 to 19 Graczyk; U.S. Pat. No. 5,283,638 to Engberg; U.S. Pat. No. 5,283,819 to Glick; 20 U.S. Pat. No. 5,297.249 to Bernstein; U.S. Pat. No. 5,307,456 to Mackay; U.S. 21 Pat. No. 5,402,499 to Robison; U.S. Pat. No. 5,428, 730 to Baker et al.; U.S. Pat. 22 No. 5,434,592 to Dinwiddie; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,436,898 to Bowen. It criticizes 23 each of these prior art for lacking the claimed Catalogue as well as other features: 24 25 26 -58- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 60 of 137 Page ID #:1264
1 A number of prior art patents that describe software and/or hardware 2 systems are provided below. These systems do not provide a general 3 cataloguing capability[.] 4 ’014 Patent, 3:48-50. 5 91. The lack of conventionality of the claimed catalogue is further 6 confirmed by contemporaneous external sources: 7 If [a reader] has specific questions (queries) in mind, such as finding a term 8 or a key word, he can go to the Index page and find the corresponding book 9 sections containing that question. Both aspects are equally important in 10 helping users access the book’s content. For today's video data, 11 unfortunately, we lack both the ToC and video Indexes to facilitate 12 browsing and retrieval. 13 Syed, M., Design and Management of Multimedia Information Systems: 14 Opportunities and Challenges, 22-49 (2001). 15 In known systems, information is simply "pushed" to the user with no 16 provisions for interactivity. Known systems do not address audio- 17 visualization of content information at all…There is no way for the user 18 to learn additional information about the subject of the image as displayed. 19 U.S. Patent No. 6,070,167 titled “Hierarchical method and system for object- 20 based audiovisual descriptive tagging of images for information retrieval” to Qian 21 et al. at 1:32-39. 22 In theory, semantic primitives of video, such as interesting objects, actions 23 and events, should be used. However, such general semantic analysis is 24 not feasible, especially when information from soundtracks and/or close 25 26 -59- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 61 of 137 Page ID #:1265
1 caption is not available. In practice, we have to rely on low-level image 2 features and other readily available information. 3 Zhang, H., "Content-based video analysis, retrieval, and browsing,” Multimedia 4 Information Retrieval and Management: Technological Fundamentals, 44 (2003). 5 Because media assets are so crucial to these [media and 6 advertising/business] companies, they have an extreme need for an 7 intelligent and efficient way to catalog, browse, search and manage their 8 media assets.... 9 U.S. Patent No. 6,567,980 titled “Video cataloger system with hyperlinked 10 output” to Jain et al. at 1:45-50. 11 92. The ‘495 patent also notes that some prior art information retrieval 12 systems inefficiently used multiple databases and data structures rather a 13 centralized Catalogue with multiple dimensions to support searching: 14 A system for database retrieval wherein entries in different databases 15 are retrieved by a process of matching key words of the databases is 16 described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,210, 868, Shimada et al., issued on May 17 11, 1993. Examples of two such databases are a mapping database and 18 a customer attribute database. A dictionary is used to Separate a 19 keyword from a first database into common and proper noun subparts. 20 Common and proper noun Synonyms are inferred according to a set of 21 rules. The Synonyms are combined using a combination rule and then 22 compared with keywords in a Second database to generate a final 23 matching result. 24 25 26 -60- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 62 of 137 Page ID #:1266
1 ’495 Patent, 1:55-65. The ’495 Patent describes search capabilities of hypertext 2 systems and notes the problem with these systems is that “[a] hypertext nodal 3 network is needed to use the indexing capability in this case”—a feature lacking 4 in non-textual multimedia. Id. at 2:48-57. 5 93. The prosecution history of the ’014 patent confirms that the claimed 6 use of certain types of internal referencing relationships in the claimed Catalogue 7 was found to be absent in the art which is further evidence of the lack of 8 conventionality or routine use of these claimed features. Applicant argued to the 9 PTO: 10 In contrast, the claimed invention is directed to a method of accessing 11 multimedia data wherein a catalogue is defined and comprises a plurality of 12 catalogue elements that are associated with multimedia data. The catalogue 13 elements are associated with a plurality of keywords in the catalogue that are 14 interrelated by one or more of associative, whole-part and inheritance 15 relationships. Thus, the structure of the catalogue includes relationships 16 between catalogue elements and keywords that are interrelated via one or 17 more whole-part, associative and inheritance relationships. 18 Response dated March 5, 1998 in Application No. 08/678,727 at 22 (attached 19 hereto as “Exhibit A”). 20 94. The Examiner’s reasons for allowance agreed with this assertion, 21 stating the “method and system for accessing multimedia data having a plurality 22 of catalogue elements associated with catalogue keywords being interrelated by 23 one or more associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships, searching, 24 browser and indexing the server configured to maintain catalogue elements, and 25 26 -61- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 63 of 137 Page ID #:1267
1 having the interface configured to transmit set of identifiers associated with 2 multimedia data, was not suggested over the prior art.” Office Action dated March 3 2, 1998 in Application No. 08/678,727 at 2-3 (attached hereto as “Exhibit A”). 4 95. These descriptions of the limitations of prior art systems and others 5 found in the patents represent important contemporaneous evidence of eligibility 6 under 101. They establish that the technical solution embodied in the Catalogue 7 claims are addressed to remedy technical problems in the art; and therefore 8 represent an improvement to existing technology. They also represent evidence 9 of the lack of conventionality of the claimed solution and therefore further support 10 the presence of inventive concepts in the claims. 11 v. The Phrase Data Structure Claims Structurally Describe a Specific Technical Implementation of an Improved Data 12 Structure that Enhances the Function of the Computer 13 96. The Phrase data structure Claims (by example only, ’014 claims 21- 14 25) describe further improvements to the catalogue that represent independent 15 grounds for patent eligibility. The “Phrase” data structure is a coined term 16 directed to a data structure for searching for specific portions of a video. The 17 original Shoah system employed a significant advance in search capability over 18 the limitations of conventional prior art multimedia systems and this advance was 19 embodied in the Phase data structure claims (e.g., ’014 claims 21-25). Prior art 20 multimedia search systems would index and retrieve whole videos in response to 21 search criteria; however, such systems were unable to search and retrieve specific 22 content or portion within a video. Thus, a viewer would have to review the entire 23 contents of a video to manually locate and view portions of that video of interest 24 which is a time consuming process. 25 26 -62- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 64 of 137 Page ID #:1268
1 97. The Shoah system improved the search capabilities over prior art 2 systems by using a Catalogue stored in a separate indexing sever that indexed the 3 contents of video in one-minute segments and then configured the multimedia 4 data so that the search could retrieve the specific portion of interest in a video file 5 and begin playing the portion: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 USC Shoah Foundation, Cataloguing and Indexing, available at 21 https://sfi.usc.edu/vha/indexing. For example, if one wants to search the system 22 for the exact part of a video where the speaker is telling his story about hiding in 23 an attic in Poland to avoid being taken to Auschwitz, he could put in the terms 24 “Auschwitz,” “attic” and “Poland,” and the system would not only retrieve the 25 26 -63- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 65 of 137 Page ID #:1269
1 video that was related to those terms, it would retrieve the specific portion of the 2 video where such discussions took place, and cue it for playback. These 3 unconventional and novel features are still in use today and can be viewed at 4 https://sfi.usc.edu/full-length-testimonies. 5 98. The patents in suit and, more specifically, the Phrase Data Structure 6 Claims, are directed to this improvement to the shortcomings of the prior art 7 systems. However, rather than broadly claiming the basic idea of this improved 8 search capability, the specification and the claims are directed to the specialized 9 and unconventional data structures and multimedia components used to 10 technically implement this feature. Rather than claiming the end result, they 11 “describe how” or “the specific means” in terms of data structures and search 12 methods to technically improve the system to achieve the enhanced search 13 capability. 14 99. The catalogue with the Phrase Data Structure Claim’s limitations, 15 individually and as an ordered combination, represent an unconventional, non- 16 routine, and not well understood technical solution embodying one or more 17 inventive concepts that impart patent eligibility. This inventive catalogue 18 structure enables the ability to search for portions of a video associated with one 19 or more attribute(s), such as a keyword, a person etc.: 20 The multimedia data catalogue used in the invention preferably consists of 21 one catalogue element that is referred to as a phrase. A phrase is associated 22 with a portion of multimedia data. …The index can be used to navigate 23 through the catalogue (e.g., search for phrases). '495 patent, 8:10-24. 24 25 26 -64- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 66 of 137 Page ID #:1270
1 The archive server maintains an identification of the location of the 2 multimedia data. Thus, when a set of catalogue elements is received 3 from the browser, the archive server can identify the location of the 4 portions of multimedia data having the desired content (i.e., the 5 portions of multimedia data associated with the catalogue elements 10 6 contained in the set). 7 ’499 patent, 5:5-10. Users may advantageously retrieve the portion of relevant 8 multimedia data without viewing the entire multimedia data file. Instead of 9 associating catalogue elements with the entire multimedia data file, the 10 multimedia data is divided into portions, each portion associated with its own 11 indexing in the catalogue and attribute elements: 12 The elements described can also be instantiated to catalogue 13 multimedia data …Catalogue B has a plurality of instances of 14 phrase 206 each associated with a portion of multimedia 60 data 15 1802B. Each instance of phrase 206 has one or more attributes and/or 16 attribute elements. Attributes such as an in timecode and an out 17 timecode identify a portion of the video from an event that is 18 associated with an instance of phrase 206. 19 ’495 patent, 25-52-65. 20 Multimedia data 1802C can contain other data for which a catalogue 21 can be used to organize the data for storage and retrieval. Instances of 22 keyword 210, type 216, and person 218 can be instantiated and 23 associated with each catalogue instance (e.g., an instance of phrase 24 206). Instances of keyword 210 and its associated instances of 25 26 -65- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 67 of 137 Page ID #:1271
1 thesaural keyword 212 can be used to identify the content of a 2 portion of multimedia data associated with the instance of 3 keyword and its associated instance of phrase 206. 4 ’495 patent, 26:22-31 5 100. A phrase in the described embodiment and claimed is an 6 unconventional data structure that is an element of a catalogue stored in a separate 7 indexing server. Many of the claims specifically claim the feature by requiring a 8 “portion of multimedia” to be indexed and represented in the catalogue as a 9 catalogue element that can be retrieved for playback. 10 101. The unconventional “phrase” element differs from conventional prior 11 art data structures in many important ways necessary for achieving the enhanced 12 multimedia search capabilities. The phrase data structure is directed to a portion 13 of a video. The phrase record contains a description of the contents of a specific 14 portion of the video and its attribute elements contain associations (i.e., pointers, 15 references etc. ) with specific type, person, keyword, proposed keywords, and 16 image attributes elements than may differ from other portions of the same video 17 (see red arrows below). ’014 Patent. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -66- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 68 of 137 Page ID #:1272
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 102. Another important unconventional feature of the particular phrase data 17 structure used in the disclosed preferred embodiment that is critical to the 101 18 analysis is that it contains an unconventional pointer to the cache where the 19 specific portion of video indexed by the phrase is stored (red arrow). This pointer 20 is unique and differs from the prior art because it points to the location of portions 21 of data so that the relevant portion may be actually retrieved from a cache and 22 played. The association with the proper cache manager allows the location of the 23 portion as it may be stored in temporary storage locations for efficient retrieval, 24 processing speed, and bandwidth consumption. 25 26 -67- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 69 of 137 Page ID #:1273
1 103. As a whole, this unconventional data structure uses an unconventional 2 pointer to associate information relevant to a memory location of a portion of 3 video with the phrase element so that the video portion may be retrieved. The 4 attribute elements of the phrase further associate the memory location with phrase 5 attributes such as type, person, or keyword that can be used to locate specific 6 phrases or portions of video of interest. Thus, the unconventional phrase 7 catalogue structure enables the system to identify and retrieve specific portions of 8 multimedia data from stored memory locations by associating attributes 9 identifying portions of the multimedia data with specific phrases: 10 The elements described can also be instantiated to catalogue 11 multimedia data …Catalogue B has a plurality of instances of 12 phrase 206 each associated with a portion of multimedia 60 data 13 1802B. Each instance of phrase 206 has one or more attributes and/or 14 attribute elements. Attributes such as an in timecode and an out 15 timecode identify a portion of the video from an event that is 16 associated with an instance of phrase 206. 17 ’495 patent, 25:52-65. The inventive catalogue structure allowing the 18 identification, search, and retrieval of specific portions of multimedia data as 19 reflected in numerous claim limitations. For example, Claim 2 of the ‘495 patent 20 describes a catalogue with the phrase data structure directed to indexing portions 21 of video: 22 1. In a computer system, a method of cataloguing multimedia data 23 comprising the steps of: 24 25 26 -68- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 70 of 137 Page ID #:1274
1 creating a catalogue comprising a plurality of elements and 2 relationships between said plurality of elements, said plurality of 3 elements identifying data associated with said multimedia data, 4 said data including keywords interrelated via one or more 5 associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships, and other 6 multimedia data associated with said multimedia data; 7 specifying a description for a portion of said multimedia data; 8 creating a catalogue element in said catalogue, said catalogue element 9 containing a pointer to said portion of said multimedia data; 10 and 11 creating for said catalogue element a pointer to at least one of said 12 keywords [associations of portion with key word attribute], said 13 at least one of said keywords containing a plurality of pointers to a 14 set of elements in said catalogue interrelated to said at least one of 15 said keywords via said one or more associative [key word 16 attribute is associated with other catalogue elements], whole- 17 part and inheritance relationships, and creating for said catalogue 18 element a plurality of pointers to elements in said catalogue that 19 identify other multimedia data associated with said portion of 20 multimedia data [relations with at least one other attribute 21 than key word] . 22 ’495 Patent, Claim 1. 23 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of creating a pointer to 24 at least one of said keywords further comprises the steps of: 25 26 -69- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 71 of 137 Page ID #:1275
1 identifying references to said at least one of said keywords in said 2 description; and 3 creating said pointer to at least one of said keywords for said 4 catalogue element. 5 creating said pointer to at least one of said keywords for said catalogue 6 element. ‘495 Patent, Claim 2. 7 Claim 10 of the ’831 patent describe indexing and processing steps directed 8 to “portions” of a multimedia file and its means plus function format incorporates 9 limitations from the very detailed specification of the Catalogue: 10 10. A computer system for cataloguing multimedia data 11 comprising: 12 a means for creating a catalogue comprising a plurality of elements 13 and relationships between said plurality of elements, said 14 plurality of elements identifying data associated with said 15 multimedia data, said data including keywords interrelated via 16 one or more associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships, 17 and other multimedia data associated with said multimedia data; 18 a means for specifying a description for a portion of said 19 multimedia data; 20 a means for creating a catalogue element in said catalogue, said 21 catalogue element containing a pointer to said portion of said 22 multimedia data; and 23 a means for creating for said catalogue element a pointer to at least one 24 of said keywords, said at least one of said keywords containing a plurality 25 26 -70- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 72 of 137 Page ID #:1276
1 of pointers to a set of elements in said catalogue interrelated to said at least 2 one of said keywords via said one or more associative, whole-part and 3 inheritance relationships, and creating for said catalogue element a 4 plurality of pointers to elements in said catalogue that identify other 5 multimedia data associated with said portion of multimedia data… 6 ’831 Patent, Claim 10. 7 104. ‘014 claim 14 recite explicit limitations directed to the cache pointer 8 of the of a phrase: 9 13. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of retrieving further comprises 10 the steps of: 11 associating a plurality of identifiers (IDs) to said portion of said multimedia 12 data; 13 creating a pointers for each of said plurality of IDs, said physical storage 14 pointer pointing to a location in which said portion of said multimedia data 15 is stored; 16 retrieving said plurality of IDs; 17 retrieving said portion of said multimedia data from storage using said 18 pointers. 19 14. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of retrieving further comprises 20 the steps of: 21 searching cache for said portion of said multimedia data; 22 retrieving said portion of multimedia data into said cache from permanent 23 storage, if said portion of multimedia data is resident on permanent storage 24 and is not found in said cache. 25 26 -71- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 73 of 137 Page ID #:1277
1 Some claims that reflect cataloguing phrases directed to portions of multimedia 2 are listed without limitation in Appendix E. 3 105. The Phrase data structure claims recite a specific unconventional data 4 structure that within the ordered combination of the remaining claim elements 5 (representing inventive concepts) gives the system the unconventional capability 6 of searching not just for a video file, but also within the given video file for 7 specific portions of the video represented using the unconventional Catalogue 8 data representation corresponding to the search parameters. The claimed system 9 thus has the ability to search for a particular portion of a larger video by 10 associating catalogue elements with the portion of multimedia data (i.e., one or 11 more frames of video data) using an unconventional data structure with an 12 unconventional pointer. The claimed data structure and ordered combination 13 represents a non-abstract “specific means” to provide a technical solution (using 14 inventive concepts) to technical problems and therefore are a non-abstract and 15 patent eligible “improvements to the computer functionality itself.” 16 D. QUERY AND SEARCH RESULT CACHING CLAIMS 17 i. Early Multimedia Systems Struggled with Problems with System Processing and Bandwidth Consumption 18 106. In 1996, computer processing costs, system congestion and bandwidth 19 consumption were major problems to early multimedia systems. The resource 20 consumption problems of content based searching are particularly acute with prior 21 art multimedia systems: 22 Obviously, full content data searching is better, but it is typically cost 23 prohibitive in prior art systems, because of the demands on system 24 resources. Therefore, there is a need in the art for an efficient full 25 26 -72- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 74 of 137 Page ID #:1278
1 content data searching technique. The technique should work with 2 disparate content data sources and disparate content data types. The 3 technique also should minimize search times by utilizing a build process to 4 pre-process the full content data to streamline searching during run- 5 time operation. The technique also should support natural word search 6 queries and should use alternative search words and word pairs to increase 7 the accuracy of search results and search 8 U.S. Patent application No. 2007/0282822 titled “Content data indexing with 9 content associations” to Anderson et al. 10 Existing database technology is not designed to manage digital video … 11 These techniques are not suitable for very large collections of video, as they 12 require a great deal of computational power and processing time. 13 Ahanger, G., Benson, D., and Little, T., Video Query Formation, Proc. Storage 14 and Retrieval for Images and Video Databases III, IS&T/SPIE Symposium on 15 Electronic Imaging Science & Technology, vol. 2420, pp. 280-291, available at 16 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.477.5252&rep=rep1&t 17 ype=pdf. 18 107. Similarly, problems associated with multimedia networks’ 19 consumption of bandwidth remained well into the 2000s and was considered “a 20 challenge multimedia networking must face”: 21 However, multimedia networking is not a trivial task. We can expect at 22 least three difficulties. First, compared with traditional textual 23 applications, multimedia applications usually require much higher 24 bandwidth. A typical piece of 25 second 320x240 QuickTime movie could 25 26 -73- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 75 of 137 Page ID #:1279
1 take 2.3MB, which is equivalent to about 1000 screens of textual data. This 2 is unimaginable in the old days when only textual data is transmitted on 3 the net. 4 Second, most multimedia applications require the real-time traffic. 5 Audio and video data must be played back continuously at the rate they are 6 sampled. If the data does not arrive in time, the playing back process will 7 stop and human ears and eyes can easily pick up the artifact…Third, 8 multimedia data stream is usually bursty. Just increasing the bandwidth will 9 not solve the burstiness problem….Contrary to the high bandwidth, real-time 10 and bursty traffic of multimedia data, in real life, networks are shared by 11 thousands and millions of users, and have limited bandwidth, unpredictable 12 delay and availability. How to solve these conflicts is a challenge 13 multimedia networking must face. 14 Liu, Multimedia Over IP: RSVP, RTP, RTCP, RTSP, http://www.cse.wustl.edu/ 15 ~jain/cis788-97/ftp/ip_multimedia/#multi1 (emphasis added). 16 This was a particular problem to the claimed solution of the Shoah system 17 because its architecture required multiple applications and system components 18 operating over a network and full content based searching. 19 ii. The Query and Search Result Caching Claims Represent a Technological Improvement to Address the Technical Problem 20 of System Processing and Bandwidth Consumption 21 108. The Patents-in-Suit attempted to address the system and bandwidth 22 consumption limitations of prior arts systems by using pre-processed search 23 results. Pre-processing all queries is an impractical task. The system used prior 24 search history saved within the catalogue as a proxy for the most important 25 26 -74- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 76 of 137 Page ID #:1280
1 queries to pre-process. By doing so, the system removes the inefficiency of 2 repeated duplicate or similar search queries—thereby lessening the consumption 3 of system resources and bandwidth (between multimedia components over a 4 network) and reducing response times. Unlike prior art systems, the claimed 5 catalogue caches queries and search results so there is no need to repeat a search: 6 The invention stores previous searches and the results of the previous 7 searches. The results of a search form a sub-catalogue, or collection of 8 catalogue elements. Thus, when a search is entered, processing determines 9 whether the search has already been performed. If so, the search results 10 are retrieved. Therefore, there is no need to repeat a search. If the search is 11 a new search, browser 318 performs the search. When search input is 12 received, browser 318 determines the type of search requested and initiates 13 the search. 14 ’014 patent, 16:42-51. 15 The Shoah patents claim the feature of a specific sub-catalogue data structure that 16 associates previous searches with specific data representations of queries. This 17 sub-catalogue caches both (1) the previous query and (2) the previous results of 18 that search. The claimed search algorithms queries the catalogue to identify 19 previous queries on the catalogue so as to avoid having to re-run the search— 20 thereby creating benefits with respect to reducing bandwidth and system 21 processing costs. 22 23 24 25 26 -75- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 77 of 137 Page ID #:1281
iii. The Query and Search Result Caching Claims Provide a 1 Specific Technological Solution to the Problem through Use of an Inventive “Catalogue” Data Structure for Caching Prior 2 Search Queries 3 109. The query and search result caching claims are not merely addressed 4 to the idea of a more efficient system or even the pre-processing of search results. 5 Rather, the patents explain and the claims claim a specific technological means 6 and data structures for achieving the technological improvement and are therefore 7 non-abstract. 8 110. The patents explain that its unconventional “catalogue” data structure 9 attributes contained within the indexing sever of the claimed system will be used 10 to store prior search results: 11 The invention stores previous searches and the results of the previous 12 searches. The results of a search form a sub-catalogue, or collection of 13 catalogue elements. Thus, when a search is entered, processing determines 14 whether the search has already been performed. If so, the search results 15 are retrieved. Therefore, there is no need to repeat a search. If the search is 16 a new search, browser 318 performs the search. When search input is 17 received, browser 318 determines whether a the type of search requested and 18 initiates the search. 19 *** 20 Query elements and objects are used to facilitate search operations. They 21 retain information about a search. Preferably, the information retained is, 22 for example, the search criteria and the search results. The criteria that 23 is retained for a search can be used to compare against criteria specified 24 for a subsequent search. If a match is found, the retained search results can 25 26 -76- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 78 of 137 Page ID #:1282
1 be used to satisfy the current search. Thus, there is no need to duplicate a 2 search. Query relations are stored on indexing server 316 in addition to the 3 catalogue and attribute elements to retain search criteria. In addition, an 4 instance of segment 404 is created to retain the results of a search. FIG. 11 5 illustrates elements and element relationships for processing and retaining 6 search requests according to an embodiment of the invention. 7 ’014 patent, 16:42-51, 20:25-39. 8 111. The invention utilizes a unconventional multimedia data structure 9 referred to as a “segment element” to identify and store the results of a search and 10 also to relationally link prior search queries and results: 11 A segment element is used to store the results of a search. A segment 12 element is a multimedia asset. Thus, for example, when a set of catalogue 13 elements is identified from a search operation, a segment element is 14 instantiated. An attribute element of the segment element contains each 15 catalogue element identified in the search operation. A relationship is 16 formed between the segment element and a query instance. 17 ’014 patent, 5:44-51. 18 112. Figure 4A shows an example format of “segment element” data 19 structure 404: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -77- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 79 of 137 Page ID #:1283
1 The “segment element” is relationally identified with another inventive data 2 structure, the “catalogue element”, which may contain pointer identifiers to 3 portions of multimedia data that satisfies the search: 4 A catalogue element is associated with a portion of multimedia data (e.g., 5 one or more frames of video data). The result of a search operation 6 performed by the browser identifies a set of catalogue elements that can 7 satisfy a search request. Each catalogue element has an associated identifier 8 (ID) (e.g., an integer ID) that uniquely identifies the catalogue element. A 9 set of IDs that represent the set of catalogue elements identified in a search 10 operation are sent to the archive server component for retrieval of the 11 associated multimedia data. 12 ’014 patent, 5:24-34: 13 The associated algorithms that creates the segment elements and stores 14 prior search results are shown by the Patents-in-Suit, including Fig. 7: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -78- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 80 of 137 Page ID #:1284
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -79- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 81 of 137 Page ID #:1285
1 The relationships between segment elements (404) and their relationships 2 through keywords and other associations are shown in Fig. 4B and 11B: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 -80- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 82 of 137 Page ID #:1286
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The interrelationships between segment elements 404 via keyword associations 15 and other types of associations show the self-referential nature of the catalogue 16 (i.e., segment elements within the catalogue refer to other elements in the 17 catalogue). 18 113. The improvements and inventive data structures discussed above are 19 embodied in, for example, claim 21 of the ’014 patent, which claim storing a 20 “search request” and the “result of said search request” in the catalogue data 21 structure: 22 21. An article of manufacture comprising: 23 24 25 26 -81- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 83 of 137 Page ID #:1287
1 a computer usable medium having computer readable program code 2 embodied therein for accessing multimedia data, the computer readable 3 program code in said article of manufacture comprising: 4 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to define a 5 catalogue for said multimedia data having a plurality of catalogue elements 6 each of which is associated with a portion of said multimedia data, said 7 plurality of catalogue elements associated with a plurality of keywords of 8 said catalogue, said plurality of keywords identifying said multimedia data, 9 said plurality of keywords being interrelated by one or more of associative, 10 whole-part and inheritance relationships: 11 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to specify a 12 search request; 13 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to identify 14 a result of said search request that satisfies said search request, said result 15 containing one or more of said plurality of catalogue elements; 16 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to retrieve 17 said portion of said multimedia data associated with said one or more of said 18 plurality of catalogue elements; 19 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to store in 20 said catalogue said search request; and computer readable program code 21 configured to cause a computer to store in said catalogue said search result. 22 [A catalogue with stored prior queries and search results as catalogue 23 elements] 24 25 26 -82- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 84 of 137 Page ID #:1288
1 22. The article of manufacture of claim 21 further comprises: 2 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to specify a 3 second search request; 4 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to compare 5 said second search request with said search request; 6 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to retrieve 7 said search result when said second search request is the same as said search 8 request [Use of the pre-processed search result to eliminate duplicate 9 searching]. 10 23. The article of manufacture of claim 21 wherein said search request is 11 comprised of one or more elements, said computer readable program code 12 configured to cause a computer to store said search request further 13 comprises: 14 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to store 15 said one or more elements; and 16 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to store 17 cardinality information for said one or more elements; and computer 18 readable program code configured to cause a computer to store conjunctivity 19 information for said one or more elements [claiming of query 20 representation data structure]. 21 24. The article of manufacture of claim 21 wherein said computer readable 22 program code configured to cause a computer to store said search result 23 further comprises: 24 25 26 -83- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 85 of 137 Page ID #:1289
1 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create a 2 container element; and 3 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create a 4 relationship between said container element and said one or more of said 5 catalogue elements [use of a segment in catalogue to store search results]. 6 Some other claims from additional Patents-in-Suit that reflect this structure are 7 listed without limitation in Appendix F. Thus, the claimed catalogue is a specific 8 data structure that improves the functionality of the catalogue by improving user 9 searches by caching the queries and results of previous searches. The claims 10 require a specific “catalogue” that stores both a previous search request and a 11 previous search result associated with that search request in a manner that 12 improves future searches using the data cached within the sub-catalogue, and 13 therefore reflect a non-abstract technical improvement. These claims further 14 reflect an unconventional, non-routine and not well understood solution and data 15 structures that embody inventive concepts. 16 114. As the specification discloses, this clearly contrasts with existing data 17 structures that did not use this inventive data structure or include a sub-catalogue 18 of previous search requests and search results and thus could not use the data 19 structure to facilitate future searches and address the bandwidth and system 20 consumption issues in the manner of the claimed solution. 21 115. Plaintiff presented this specific technological improvement with 22 inventive concepts to the PTO during prosecution and argued “[the prior art] does 23 not teach, suggest or describe storing said search request or search result in a 24 catalogue as in the claimed invention.” Response dated March 5, 1998 in 25 26 -84- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 86 of 137 Page ID #:1290
1 Application No. 08/678,727 at 19 (attached hereto as “Exhibit A”). In allowing 2 the claims, the examiner agreed that caching search requests and caching search 3 results within the catalogue were both new features not previously found in the art 4 thereby providing further confirmation of the unconventionality and the presence 5 of inventive concepts in the above claimed technical solution: 6 These limitations in conjunction with other limitations [i.e., storing said 7 search request or search result in a catalogue as in the claimed invention] of 8 the dependent and independent claims were not shown by, would not have 9 been obvious over, nor would have been fairly suggested by the prior art 10 made of record. 11 Office Action dated March 2, 1998 in Application No. 08/678,727 at 2-3 (attached 12 hereto as “Exhibit A”). 13 116. Thus, the patent’s inventive concept embedded in the improved 14 catalogue solves the problem of determining what search results to preprocess by 15 using the prior history of searches as a proxy for the most important searches to 16 pre-process. The catalogue structure also stores prior search results so that they 17 can be used to further improve the associations and attributes in the catalogue to 18 improve future searches. ’014 patent, 16:42-51, 20:25-39. The improved and 19 unconventional Catalogue Data Structure and associations discussed above 20 represent a specific technological means for less consumption of processing 21 resources and quicker response times; and therefore is a non-abstract 22 technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. 23 117. Other claims of the patents further elaborate on even more specific 24 details of the Catalogue data structure in this regard by describing the 25 26 -85- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 87 of 137 Page ID #:1291
1 unconventional “segment” data structure found within the catalogue storing 2 search processing results. A segment data structure is described generally as: 3 Segment 404 is a container element. It can contain other elements. For 4 example, Segment 404 can contain one or more instances of phrase 406. In 5 the invention, input data is decomposed into one or more pieces, or 6 fragments. An instance of phrase 406 is associated with each input data 7 fragment. Phrase 406 is a catalogue element. Phrase 406 has one or more 8 attributes and/or attribute elements on which an index is built. The index can 9 be used to navigate through the catalogue. 10 ’014 patent, 9:27-35. 11 A segment container for storing search results is described as: 12 A segment element is used to store the results of a search. Thus, for 13 example, when a set of catalogue elements is identified from a search 14 operation, a segment element is instantiated. An attribute element of the 15 segment element contains each catalogue element identified in the search 16 operation. A relationship is formed between the segment element and a 17 query instance. 18 ’014 patent, 5:44-50. 19 The data structure for representing a prior search query is described here: 20 The invention retains the content and results of a search such that it is only 21 necessary to perform a search once. Thereafter, the results of the search can 22 be retrieved without performing the search. Search elements are used to 23 store the content of a search, i.e., search criteria. Search elements include a 24 query and a query element. Query element instances contain the search 25 26 -86- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 88 of 137 Page ID #:1292
1 criteria. A query instance identifies a particular query. A query instance can 2 contain one or more query element instances. 3 ’014 patent, 5:35-43. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Detailed specifics of the query representation as attribute elements are 19 explicitly claimed in, for example, ’014 patent, claim 3: 20 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said search request is comprised of one or 21 more elements, the step of storing said search request further comprises the 22 steps of: 23 storing said one or more elements; and 24 storing cardinality information for said one or more elements; and 25 26 -87- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 89 of 137 Page ID #:1293
1 storing conjunctivity information for said one or more elements. 2 See also ’014 patent, claim 23. 3 118. The patent embodiment describes the use of the segment container 4 within the catalogue and the associative self-referencing relationships and 5 attribute elements of the Catalogue to associate particular results with a particular 6 query so that prior searches can be retrieved: 7 Thus, the criteria for a search can be recreated and compared to a new set of 8 search criteria. If a match is found, the instance of query 1102 associated 9 with the match can be used to find its associated instance of segment 404 10 (via relationship 1114). The instances of phrase 406 associated with the 11 instance of segment 404 (via relationship 428) can then be identified. If a 12 match is not found, a search can be performed to identify a new instance of 13 segment 404 and its associated instances of phrase 406. 14 ’014 patent, 21:20-28. 15 At step 702 (i.e., “search already exists?”), a determination is made whether 16 the search specified in the input already exists. If the search already exists, 17 processing continues at step 704 to identify the instance of segment 404 that 18 was created for the search. If no instance of segment 404 is found, 19 processing ends at step 736. If an instance of segment 404 is found, 20 processing continues at step 706 to retrieve it. At step 708, the instances of 21 phrase 406 associated with the segment instance are identified (e.g., the 22 associated phrase ids are retrieved from indexing server 316 using Get_ 23 Phrases_In_Segment routine in Segment group 512 of interface 314). 24 Processing ends at step 736. 25 26 -88- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 90 of 137 Page ID #:1294
1 ’014 patent, 16:52-63. 2 119. The use of segment containers and catalogue elements in query and 3 keyword (and other) associations is explicitly claimed. ’014 claims 3, 4 and 24 4 describe further limitations of the search caching algorithm of claims 1 and 21, 5 including creating the inventive “segment” data structure (i.e., the “container 6 element”) data structure for storing search results: 7 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of storing said search result 8 further comprises the steps of: 9 creating a container element; and 10 creating a relationship between said container element and said one or more 11 of said catalogue elements. 12 24. The article of manufacture of claim 21 wherein said computer readable 13 program code configured to cause a computer to store said search result 14 further comprises: 15 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create a 16 container element; and 17 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to create a 18 relationship between said container element and said one or more of said 19 catalogue elements. 20 120. Claims 10 and 11 provide additional further limitations. Claim 11 in 21 particular require identifying keyword associations between catalogue elements 22 (the results of previous searches). A keyword association between catalogue 23 elements may represent a self-referential relationship within the catalogue (i.e., a 24 catalogue element that refers to another catalogue element in the catalogue): 25 26 -89- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 91 of 137 Page ID #:1295
1 10. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of identifying further comprises 2 the steps of: 3 identifying a plurality of person instances using said search request; 4 identifying a plurality of container elements related to said plurality of 5 person instances; and 6 identifying a plurality of catalogue elements related to said plurality of 7 container element instances. 8 11. The method of claim 10 further comprising the steps of: 9 identifying a plurality of keywords associated with one of said plurality of 10 catalogue elements; 11 examining said plurality of keywords to determine whether said one of said 12 plurality of catalogue elements satisfies content criteria specified in said 13 search request; and 14 including said one of said plurality of catalogue elements in a set of 15 catalogue elements when said content criteria is satisfied. 16 121. Other claims directed to search caching include claims 5 and 6 of the 17 ’638 patent reciting use of survey data with the “phrase” data structure: 18 5. The method of claim 2 wherein said at least one attribute identifies at least 19 one segment element of said catalogue. 20 6. The method of claim 1 wherein said catalogue element is a phrase 21 element. 22 Some other claims from additional Patents-in-Suit that reflect the above described 23 features are listed without limitation in Appendix G. 24 25 26 -90- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 92 of 137 Page ID #:1296
1 122. Thus, these claims which further elaborate on the unconventional, 2 non-routine, and not well understood data structures used to cache search results 3 claim further inventive concepts used within an unconventional ordered 4 combination of claim limitations that provide a non-abstract technical solution 5 (including the inventive concepts described above) to the technical problems of 6 bandwidth and system processing resource consumption. They provide the 7 specific, therefore non-abstract, technological means in terms of improved data 8 structures and processing for reducing bandwidth and resource consumption 9 rather than merely being directed to a desirable but abstract result. 10 E. VIDEO CACHING CLAIMS 11 i. The Video Caching Claims Address the Problem of Bandwidth and System Resource Consumption by Improved Storage of 12 Multimedia Data 13 123. The video caching claims represent a further technological 14 improvement to prior art systems designed to address bandwidth and system 15 processing limitations of prior art multimedia systems described above. These 16 claims provide limitations directed to an improved architecture of storage systems 17 and the use of the improved catalogue described above that caches search results 18 to reduce system processing and bandwidth consumption as well as response 19 times and efficient delivery. 20 124. In addition to improving multimedia search functionality by caching 21 search queries and their results in the catalogue, the Shoah patents also store the 22 underlying videos that are identified as search results (i.e. specific portions of 23 videos responsive to a search) in a two tier architecture using local caches and 24 remote caches. The patents recognize that prior art systems retrieved complete 25 26 -91- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 93 of 137 Page ID #:1297
1 videos from magnetic tape systems, optical discs, and other forms of permanent 2 storage: 3 An image data filing system consisting of a library for storing a 4 plurality of image storage media (e.g., optical disks), a disk array for 5 storing image data retrieved from the image storage media, a console for 6 entering user instructions, and an output device for displaying image data is 7 described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,463,771, Sotoyanagi et al., issued on Oct. 31, 8 1995. A control device is used to control the retrieval and storage operations. 9 ’499 Patent, 4:3-10. 10 125. The patents identify a problem of these prior art systems’ retrieving 11 multimedia from permanent storage as that this retrieval is inefficient, slow, and 12 processing intensive (“retrieval time is fastest when the data is retrieved from 13 cache (either local or remote). When a tape system must be accessed to retrieve 14 the data, retrieval time will most likely be slower”) and propose to solve this 15 problem by storing the videos identified in a previous search in remote and local 16 caches to improve retrieval time and search processing efficiency: 17 In addition, the invention uses one or more instances of cache to 18 temporarily store the multimedia data. Cache manager 1210 manages one 19 or more caches (cache 1 through cache N). Cache I-N are one terabyte (Th) 20 caches, for example. 21 ’014 Patent, 21:57-61. 22 The multimedia data is permanently stored at a main site with copies of data 23 that has accessed stored at the user's site. The local catalogue is accessed to 24 identify the data requested in a user request. If a copy of the requested data 25 26 -92- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 94 of 137 Page ID #:1298
1 does not exist at the local site, a search is made for the data at another site. 2 The search first examines the cache at the other sites. If the data cannot be 3 found in cache at the local or another site. The local site accesses the main 4 site to retrieve the requested data. A vehicle such as a WAN or the Internet 5 can be used to transmit the data between sites. 6 ’499 Patent, 13:11-21. Retrieval is further improved using a cache management 7 system that allows for faster access than permanent storage solutions: 8 Cache Management 9 Preferably, cache management is supplied by an instance of tertiary storage 10 manager 204. The instance of tertiary storage manager 204 that manages 11 the data denormalizes the data allowing for faster access. Tertiary 12 storage manager 204 that manages cache 244 uses a least recently used 13 (LRU) scheme. Thus, multimedia data that has the oldest access time is 14 purged to make room for newly accessed data. 15 ‘499 Patent, 10:51-11:31. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -93- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 95 of 137 Page ID #:1299
ii. The Video Caching Claims Provide a Particularized 1 Technological Solution to the Multimedia Storage Problem Through Use of a Novel Data Structure for Storing Specific 2 Requested Portions of Multimedia Data Referenced by Pointers in the Sub-Catalogue 3 126. The patents disclose several technological solutions to the problem of 4 inefficient retrieval from permanent storage. The patents disclose a two tier 5 caching structure using remote and local caches to improve retrieval efficiency, as 6 shown in Fig. 2: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 127. The inventive system includes a series of local caches 1 through N (at 21 244), a remote cache (at 260), and if necessary permanent storage (at 242). By 22 caching search results (portions of multimedia data responsive to a search query) 23 in a tiered system using remote and local caches, the system provides a 24 25 26 -94- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 96 of 137 Page ID #:1300
1 technological improvement to prior systems that only retrieved multimedia data 2 from tape systems and other forms of permanent storage: 3 The multimedia data associated with catalogue elements can be retrieved 4 from offline storage such as a tape system. The invention also provides the 5 ability to temporarily store multimedia data in cache such as cache 244 in 6 FIG. 2. Cache can be local (i.e., cache that resides at the local site) or remote 7 (i.e., cache at a remote site). In most cases, retrieval time is fastest when 8 the data is retrieved from cache (either local or remote). When a tape 9 system must be accessed to retrieve the data, retrieval time will most 10 likely be slower. Therefore, it is preferable to determine whether the 11 data is resident in cache before accessing a storage system such as a tape 12 system. Further, it is preferable to manage the cache such that the data 13 that is most likely to be needed is resident in cache. 14 ’499 Patent, 11:-14. 15 128. The patent provides an algorithm for retrieving multimedia data from 16 the two tier cache system by first searching in the local cache and, only if the data 17 is not found, repeating the search on the remote cache and finally searching 18 permanent storage, as shown in Fig. 4: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -95- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 97 of 137 Page ID #:1301
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 -96- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 98 of 137 Page ID #:1302
1 129. The patents further disclose using “named caches” to store frequently 2 requested multimedia data on a semi-permanent basis to reduce the need to 3 retrieve multimedia data from permanent storage: 4 Named Cache 5 In addition to the regular cache that can be managed as discussed above, the 6 invention includes a plurality of named caches. A named cache can be used 7 to store data on a more permanent basis. A named cache is a portion of 8 cache (e.g., cache 318) that is can be managed separate from the general 9 cache pool. A named cache may be used for data that is accessed or has 10 the potential for access on a more permanent basis. For example, one or 11 more searches can yield a sub-catalogue (e.g., a subset of the set of 12 catalogue elements associated with multimedia data 252) that contains 13 data pertinent to a particular subject area or group of users. The named 14 cache can be used to store the portions of multimedia data 252 15 associated with the sub-catalogue at a remote site such that it is not 16 purged despite its LRU statistics. The portions of multimedia data 252 17 associated with a sub-catalogue can be retained permanently or semi- 18 permanently. That is, the contents of the named cache can be retained for a 19 specified period of time and is not subject to purge. 20 ’499 patent, 12:27-45. The named cache identified by the catalogue solves the 21 problem of retrieval from permanent storage by providing a semi-permanent 22 storage location for multimedia data that is still more accessible than permanent 23 storage devices such as magnetic tapes or optical discs. Thus, the named cache 24 25 26 -97- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 99 of 137 Page ID #:1303
1 further reduces the need to retrieve multimedia data from permanent storage even 2 for systems utilizing smaller caches. 3 130. The Patents disclose a specific data structure for search result caching 4 in the catalogue illustrated for example by Fig. 12: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 131. This data structure of Fig. 12 is utilized to cache specific portions of 18 multimedia data and how the portions are associated with specific phrases in the 19 catalogue (and identified by pointers) to facilitate retrieval from the caches: 20 FIG. 12 illustrates use of the phrase element to access multimedia data in 21 accordance with an embodiment of the invention. 22 *** 23 Phrase 406 is an attribute element that is associated with a portion of 24 multimedia data. Phrase 406 has ID and timecode attributes. A 25 26 -98- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 100 of 137 Page ID #:1304
1 corresponding instance of phrase is maintained by archive server 306, i.e., 2 phrase 1206. Phrase 1206 has an ID that corresponds with the ID of its 3 counterpart instance of phrase 406. Similarly, the timecode attributes of 4 phrase 1206 correspond to the timecode attributes of phrase 406. In addition, 5 phrase 1206 has a path attribute that points to the physical storage location 6 of the portion of multimedia data associated with phrase 1206 (and 406). 7 The input data path attribute of phrase 1206 can be used to load the 8 multimedia data from a storage device. Multimedia data is permanently 9 stored in storage 1208 (e.g., a tape system such as a provided by EMASS). 10 In addition, the invention uses one or more instances of cache to temporarily 11 store the multimedia data. Cache manager 1210 manages one or more caches 12 (cache 1 through cache N). Cache 1-N are one terabyte (Th) caches, for 13 example. 14 ’014 Patent, 6:62-64, 21:43-53. 15 The disclosed data structure enables the local cache to store the videos 16 identified in the catalogue as a prior search result relevant (portions of multimedia 17 data responsive to a search query) without overloading cache storage with all the 18 multimedia data that may be found in permanent storage by storing only the 19 portions responsive to the query. This is accomplished by using the “phrase 20 element” and “segment” data structures of the Catalogue to identify the portion of 21 multimedia data responsive to the search, and storing the identified portion of 22 multimedia data in the local cache. 23 132. The system stores data in multiple caches and the system is capable of 24 searching all the caches for multimedia data corresponding to the search. Only if 25 26 -99- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 101 of 137 Page ID #:1305
1 not all of the multimedia data is found within the caches, the system will query 2 additional locations such as permanent storage: “Archive server 206 determines 3 whether the portion of cache 244 resident at the same site (i.e., local cache) 4 contains the multimedia data associated with the catalogue elements. If the 5 multimedia data is not stored in local cache, the archive server can query other 6 archive servers to determine whether the data is stored in the portion of cache 244 7 that resides at the other site (i.e., remote cache). If the archive server cannot find a 8 copy of the data in cache 244, it will attempt to retrieve the data from permanent 9 storage (e.g., non-line storage 242).” ’499 patent, 11:20-31. FIG. 4 provides a 10 process flow for cache management and retrieval according to an embodiment of 11 the invention. 12 133. The inventive two tier architecture disclosed by the patent is reflected 13 in the claims. For example, claim 7 of the ‘080 patent and dependents describe 14 the improved architecture of the inventive multi-tiered caching system by 15 specifying “a plurality of remote sites compris[ing] temporary storage for some or 16 all of said multimedia data” where the temporary storage “is a cache” and “is a 17 named cache”: 18 7. The system of claim 1 wherein said distribution system further comprises: 19 a main site wherein said main site comprises permanent storage for the 20 multimedia data in said digital library system; and 21 a plurality of remote sites coupled to said main site wherein said remote sites 22 comprise temporary storage for some or all of said multimedia data in said 23 digital library system. 24 10. The system of claim 7 wherein said temporary storage is a cache. 25 26 -100- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 102 of 137 Page ID #:1306
1 11. The system of claim 7 wherein said temporary storage is a named cache. 2 134. Claim 13 of the ‘499 patent which recites the local and remote caches 3 and further recites using phrase catalogue elements (The multimedia data 4 catalogue used in the invention preferably consists of one catalogue element that 5 is referred to as a phrase) to retrieve the specific portions of multimedia data 6 responsive to the search from the caches: 7 13. A method of retrieving data in a digital library system comprising the 8 steps of: 9 searching a local cache for a portion of multimedia data stored in said digital 10 library system, digital library system having a catalogue of said multimedia 11 data comprising at least one catalogue element associated with a plurality of 12 keywords of said catalogue, said plurality of keywords identifying said 13 portion of said multimedia data, said plurality of keywords being interrelated 14 by one or more of associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships; 15 retrieving said portion of multimedia data into said local cache from a 16 remote cache, if said portion of multimedia data is resident in said remote 17 cache and is not found in said local cache; 18 retrieving said portion of multimedia data into said local cache from 19 permanent storage, if said portion of multimedia data is resident on 20 permanent storage and is not found in said local cache or said remote cache. 21 Thus, the improved catalogue of catalogue elements that specifies the cache as an 22 attribute represents patent eligible programmable characteristics configuring a 23 cache. 24 25 26 -101- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 103 of 137 Page ID #:1307
1 135. Dependent claim 15 recites the use of named caches to store 2 frequently requested multimedia data on a semi-permanent basis: 3 15. The method of claim 14 wherein said step of determining further 4 comprises the steps of: 5 determining whether said cache contains information that is currently being 6 used; 7 determining whether said cache contains information that is marked for 8 semi-permanent retention; 9 freeing said cache, if said cache does not contain information currently in 10 use and said cache is not marked for semi-permanent retention. 11 The same technological improvements of the two tier remote and local 12 cache architecture, use of the phrase catalogue element data structure to identify 13 specific responsive search results (portions of multimedia data), and use of named 14 caches reference in the catalogue to store frequently requested multimedia data 15 semi-permanently is similarly found in ’014 patent claims 16-18: 16 16. An article of manufacture comprising: 17 a computer usable medium having computer readable program code 18 embodied therein for retrieving data in a digital library system, the computer 19 readable program code in said article of manufacture comprising: 20 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to search a 21 local cache for a portion of multimedia data stored in said digital library 22 system, said digital library system having a catalogue of said multimedia 23 data comprising at least one catalogue element associated with a plurality of 24 keywords of said catalogue, said plurality of keywords identifying said 25 26 -102- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 104 of 137 Page ID #:1308
1 portion of said multimedia data, said plurality of keywords being interrelated 2 by one or more of associative, whole-part and inheritance relationships; 3 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to retrieve 4 said portion of multimedia data into said local cache from a remote cache, if 5 said portion of multimedia data is resident in said remote cache and is not 6 found in said local cache; 7 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to retrieve 8 said portion of multimedia data into said local cache from permanent 9 storage, if said portion of multimedia data is resident on permanent storage 10 and is not found in said local cache or said remote cache. 11 17. The article of manufacture of claim 16 wherein said program code 12 configured to cause a computer to retrieve into local cache further 13 comprises: 14 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to 15 determine whether there is space available in said local cache for said 16 portion of multimedia data; 17 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to free 18 space in said local cache for said portion of multimedia data, if there is not 19 enough space available; 20 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to update 21 cache management information. 22 18. The article of manufacture of claim 17 wherein said program code 23 configured to cause a computer to determine further comprises: 24 25 26 -103- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 105 of 137 Page ID #:1309
1 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to 2 determine whether said cache contains information that is currently being 3 used; 4 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to 5 determine whether said cache contains information that is marked for semi- 6 permanent retention; 7 computer readable program code configured to cause a computer to free said 8 cache, if said cache does not contain information currently in use and said 9 cache is not marked for semi-permanent retention. 10 Some other claims from additional Patents-in-Suit that reflect the above described 11 features are listed without limitation in Appendix H. In addition to implicating 12 portions and cataloguing search results which provide independent bases of 13 patentability, the video caching claims are patent eligible because directed to a 14 specific implementation to computer technology rather than merely the abstract 15 idea of improving bandwidth or even caching itself. 16 136. The patent sets forth and claims a specific architecture of multimedia 17 components and storage systems using multiple caches to store portions of 18 multimedia data and an algorithm for retrieving portions of multimedia related to 19 a specific search request from the caches. It describes specialized data structures 20 (i.e., the improved catalogue) that represent programmable characteristics of the 21 cache. This system dramatically improves multimedia retrieval from prior art 22 systems by storing (1) videos in local caches (2) relevant to prior search request 23 and results to improve response times, delivery, and system processing and 24 bandwidth consumption. Indeed, the “cache” implementation stores portions of 25 26 -104- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 106 of 137 Page ID #:1310
1 multimedia data associated with particular “catalogues” of previous search 2 requests to facilitate the retrieval of portions of multimedia data associated with 3 past searches. The Video Caching claims in turn represent a non-abstract 4 technical solution to a technical limitation of the art. The claims specify a 5 particularized technical means (architecture; data structures; and processing steps 6 using the aforementioned) for achieving an improvement to existing technology 7 rather than being directed merely to an abstract idea of a desirable result. The 8 above described claimed features also represent an unconventional, non-routine, 9 not well understood solution that contain inventive concepts that render the claims 10 patent eligible. 11 VII. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS 12 137. The infringing Defendant systems, articles, and methods include, but 13 are not limited to, systems, articles, and methods relating to the cataloguing, 14 organizing, searching, rating, and provisioning of digital multimedia data, 15 including but not limited to Defendants’ software and hardware supporting 16 various Internet websites for streaming video, and related home and mobile 17 device specific applications (the “Accused Systems”). The Accused Systems, 18 among other things, puts into use components from other parties (such as CDNs 19 and customers) that infringe the Patents-in-Suit as set forth below. Preservation 20 alleges infringement of the Asserted Patents by the Accused Systems by all 21 websites operated by or for the MindGeek Organization that use, without 22 limitation, the following platforms (and all other websites operated by or on 23 behalf of the MindGeek Organization that use similar systems, platforms and/or 24 protocols) collectively referred to herein as “Defendants’ Accused Websites”: 25 26 -105- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 107 of 137 Page ID #:1311
1 • PornHub.com (“www.pornhub.com”) 2 • YouPorn.com (“www.youporn.com”) 3 • Tube8.com (“www.tube8.com”) 4 • XTube.com (“www.xtube.com”) 5 • ExtremeTube.com (“www.extremetube.com”) 6 • RedTube.com (“www.redtube.com”) 7 • SpankWire.com (“www.spankwire.com”) 8 • KeezMovies.com (“www.keezmovies.com”) 9 • YouPornGay.com (“www.youporngay.com”) 10 • PornMD.com (“www.pornmd.com”) 11 • Brazzers (“www.brazzersnetwork.com”) 12 • Digital Playground (“www.digitalplayground.com”) 13 • Twistys (“www.twistys.com”) 14 • Reality Kings (“www.realitykings.com”) 15 • SexTube.com (“www.sextube.com”) 16 • Beeg. (“www.beeg.com”) 17 • Mofos.com (“www.mofos.com”) 18 • MyDirtyHobby.com (“us.mydirtyhobby.com”) 19 • GayTube.com (“www.gaytube.com”) 20 • Babes.com (“www.babes.com”) 21 • Thumbzilla (“www.thumbzilla.com”) 22 • SeanCody.com (“www.seancody.com”) 23 • Men.com (“www.men.com”) 24 • Gay Tube (“www.gaytube.com”) 25 26 -106- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 108 of 137 Page ID #:1312
1 • Peeperz (“www.peeperz.com”) 2 • Porn IQ (“www.porniq.com”) 3 • Adult.com (“www.adult.com”) 4 • All Next Door (“www.allnextdoor.com”) 5 • Anal Driveway (“www.analdriveway.com”) 6 • Bareback HD Porn (“www.backbackhdporn.com”) 7 • Cock for Two (“www.cockfortwo.com”) 8 • Cum Trainer (“www.cumtrainer.com”) 9 • Elegant Anal (“www.elegantanal.com”) 10 • Extreme Gangbang (“www.extremegangbang.com”) 11 • Fetish360 (“www.fetish360.com”) 12 • Latina Sex Tapes (“www.latinasextapes.com”) 13 • Erito.com (“www.erito.com”) 14 • Let’s Try Anal (“www.letstryanal.com”) 15 • MILFs in Japan (“www.milfsinjapan.com”) 16 • Mofos Network (“www.mofosnetwork.com”) 17 • MyPorn Downloads (“www.myporndownloads.com”) 18 • Office Obsession (“www.officeobession.com”) 19 • Pervs on Patrol (“www.pervsonpatrol.com”) 20 • Public Pickups (“www.publicpickups.com”) 21 • Real Slut Party (“www.realslutparty.com”) 22 • Sex Pro Adventures (“www.sexproadventures.com”) 23 • She Male Fuck Fest (“www.shemalefuckfest.com”) 24 • I Know That Girl (“www.iknowthatgirl.com”) 25 26 -107- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 109 of 137 Page ID #:1313
1 • Tranny Surprise (“www.trannysurprise.com”) 2 • webcams.com (“www.webcams.com”) 3 138. In addition to the foregoing, Defendants also provide related services 4 and associated applications for the above websites, including but not limited to 5 mobile applications. Further, Defendants provide specifications and instructions 6 for the installation and operation of infringing systems and articles to end users 7 and customers and instructs end users and customers to use the products and 8 software in an infringing manner, including via the enumerated Accused Systems. 9 A. Direct and Joint Infringement 10 139. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 11 above and incorporates them herein. 12 140. Upon information and belief, Defendants use, make available, provide 13 and/or distribute infringing systems in this jurisdiction and elsewhere. For 14 example, Defendants provide and/or distribute infringing Accused Systems to 15 customers and third-parties. Defendants use software and hardware to process 16 queries and requests by third-parties. Accused systems used by, put into use by, 17 provided and/or distributed by Defendants include, by way of example only, 18 Defendants’ websites and mobile applications and associated computerized 19 instructions, user interfaces, media players, and multimedia. These components 20 further use or put into use components of 21 141. Upon information and belief, the MindGeek Organization provides 22 software, applications, mobile applications, hardware and/or computerized 23 instructions that constitute, use, and/or put into use systems and methods that 24 infringe the patents. This includes components and systems owned by Defendants 25 26 -108- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 110 of 137 Page ID #:1314
1 and/or third-parties (such as, without limitation, its users, CDNs, content 2 providers, and customers. Customers who download, use, or put into use 3 Defendants’ software, applications, and/or mobile applications in accordance with 4 Defendants’ provided instructions also engage in infringing activity as described 5 above. Defendants’ software and servers also use, instruct and control 6 components owned by Defendants and third parties. 7 142. Upon information and belief, Defendants exercises control over the 8 devices of customers and third-parties. Defendants’ customers and third-parties 9 download Defendants’ software and/or mobile applications to their devices and 10 Defendants exercises control over those devices by sending computerized 11 instructions, providing infringing software, providing user and other interfaces, 12 and providing protocols to allow its customers and third-parties to interact with 13 Defendants’ servers and to use Defendants’ systems and that of third parties in an 14 infringing manner. Defendants control and put into use the interactions between 15 customer and third-party devices and Defendant systems in an infringing manner 16 in this jurisdiction and elsewhere. 17 143. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employees, in this Judicial 18 District and elsewhere, operate the Accused Systems in an infringing manner, 19 such as by way of example only (1) using the Accused Systems to support 20 websites and applications; (2) putting into use by others (3) demonstrating the 21 Accused System, (4) testing the Accused System, and (5) using the Accused 22 Systems to catalogue multimedia. 23 144. Defendants also have agreements with users, content providers, 24 customers, CDNs and other third parties that provide the requisite relationship, 25 26 -109- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 111 of 137 Page ID #:1315
1 agency and control for joint infringement. Defendants and third parties engaged 2 in the above activity expect, instruct, aid and abet, intend, know and derive 3 economic and other benefit from the infringement’s described above and below. 4 145. All of the above acts constitute acts of direct and joint infringement. 5 B. Induced and Contributory Infringement 6 146. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 7 above and incorporates them herein. 8 147. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts described as acts of 9 direct infringement concerning the manufacture, use, putting into use, offering for 10 sale, sale, operation, distribution, and/or installation of Defendants systems and/or 11 software and those described above and below also constitute acts of induced and 12 contributory infringement. 13 148. Upon information and belief, third-parties including Defendants’ 14 customers, users, CDNs, storage facilities, content providers and owners within 15 this jurisdiction and elsewhere directly infringe the Asserted Patents and 16 Defendants induce and/or contribute to that infringement. As an example only, 17 end users of Defendants’ Accused Websites, including, but not limited to 18 Defendants’ pornhub.com website, retrieve adult videos, clips, and other 19 multimedia types by using (and putting into use) the systems and solutions 20 claimed by the Asserted Patents. Further, users upload multimedia to Defendants’ 21 system and catalogue the uploaded multimedia in an infringing manner. Both the 22 software made available at Defendants’ websites and instructions provided by 23 Defendants induce users and third-parties to use an infringing system and method, 24 and the third-parties do in fact infringe. 25 26 -110- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 112 of 137 Page ID #:1316
1 149. Defendants induce users and third-parties to infringe by providing 2 monetary and/or other compensation, such as for uploading and cataloguing 3 multimedia. 4 150. To the extent that some elements of a claim are performed by or 5 owned by a different party than Defendants, Defendants, through software and 6 infringing systems, put the claimed system of the Asserted Patents into service or 7 use as described herein and receive a benefit upon performance of steps of the 8 methods of the Asserted Patents. To the extent multimedia is provided by third- 9 party servers or networks, Defendants’ systems and/or Defendants’ customers’ 10 systems put these third-party systems into use. For example, Defendants provide 11 software instructions downloaded by third-parties that put into use the third- 12 parties’ players, CDNs and other systems. Third-parties put into use Defendants’ 13 systems by indexing, searching for and retrieving multimedia in an infringing 14 manner and vice versa. Further, Defendants’ software establishes the manner 15 and/or timing of the performance of steps of the Asserted Patents, such as 16 establishing the manner and/or timing of user’s cataloguing, searching or 17 playback of multimedia. 18 151. Upon information and belief, Defendants receive a benefit from such 19 actions by the third-parties as it allows Defendants to provide a desirable product 20 or allows the third-parties to purchase products and services from Defendants. 21 152. Upon information and belief, Defendants provide customers and/or 22 other third-parties instructions, materials, advertisements, services, 23 encouragement, and software to use, load, and/or operate the Accused Systems in 24 an infringing manner. Sending computerized instructions are acts of control by 25 26 -111- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 113 of 137 Page ID #:1317
1 Defendants on the players of third-parties. Upon information and belief, 2 Defendants further induce customers and third-parties to use the Accused Systems 3 by providing subscriptions for the Accused Systems. Defendants have actively 4 induced infringement by customers and/or third-parties in this jurisdiction. 5 153. Upon information and belief, Defendants have acted with the specific 6 intent to induce or cause infringement and to conduct acts of infringement as 7 described herein within this jurisdiction and elsewhere. Defendants continue to 8 provide instructions to customers and third-parties to operate the Accused 9 Systems in an infringing manner since having notice and actual knowledge of the 10 Asserted Patents. Defendants’ notice and actual knowledge of the Asserted 11 Patents are more fully set forth in paragraphs 158 - 163 below. 12 154. Upon information and belief, customers and users of the Accused 13 Systems reside in this jurisdiction and conduct acts of infringement within this 14 jurisdiction. Upon information and belief, Defendants have and continue to 15 indirectly infringe the Asserted Patents within this jurisdiction and elsewhere in 16 the United States by, among other things, inducing and/or contributing to third- 17 parties’ infringement of the claims of the Asserted Patents without Plaintiff’s 18 authority. 19 155. Upon information and belief, Defendants provide, make, sell, and 20 offer their Accused Systems with the specific intention that customers and/or 21 other third-party direct infringers use the Accused Systems in an infringing 22 manner. Upon information and belief, Defendants provide and instruct third- 23 parties to use the Accused Systems in the manner claimed in the Asserted Patents. 24 25 26 -112- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 114 of 137 Page ID #:1318
1 156. Upon information and belief, the Accused Systems have no 2 substantial non-infringing use and are especially made and/or adapted so as to 3 infringe the Asserted Patents. 4 157. Upon information and belief, Defendants know their systems, articles 5 and services are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement 6 of the Asserted Patents and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce 7 suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 8 158. The MindGeek Organization including each Defendant acquired 9 knowledge of the Asserted Patents (other than the ’071 and ’638 Patents) at least 10 by no later than September 30, 2014, the date the MindGeek Organization 11 received Plaintiff’s Notice of Infringement letter. The MindGeek Organization 12 and each Defendant acquired knowledge of the ’071 and ’638 Patents no later 13 than Plaintiff’s Notice of Infringement letter of October 3, 2014. 14 159. Upon information and belief, Defendants have had notice and actual 15 knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Asserted Patents other than the ’071 and 16 ’638 Patents since at least September 30, 2014. 17 160. Upon information and belief, Defendants have had notice and actual 18 knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the ’071 and ’638 Patents since at least October 19 3, 2014. 20 161. Defendants have had notice and actual knowledge of the Asserted 21 Patents and its infringing activity at least as of the service date of complaints filed 22 December 11, 2017 in the present action and filed October 10, 2014 in the District 23 of Delaware. 24 25 26 -113- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 115 of 137 Page ID #:1319
1 162. In November 2014, counsel for Preservation met with counsel for the 2 MindGeek Organization and Defendants to discuss the details of MindGeek’s 3 infringement of the Asserted Patents, including with respect to the Pornhub and 4 other MindGeek websites, which are among Defendants’ Accused Websites. 5 163. No later than November 2014, Defendants obtained knowledge that 6 their actions constituted direct infringement of the Asserted Patents, induced 7 infringement of the Asserted Patents and/or contributed to infringement of the 8 Asserted Patents. 9 164. Notwithstanding, Defendants continue to willfully and with specific 10 intent infringe upon and cause others to infringe upon one or more claims of the 11 Asserted Patents. 12 ASSERTED CLAIMS 13 165. Plaintiff alleges infringement of the following patents and gives notice
13 14 of least the following claims as being infringed 12F : 15 Patent Claims 16 ‘014 15-20, 22, 23, 24, 25 17 ‘499 3-7, 18 18 ‘080 2-4 19 ‘831 2 20 ‘495 14, 15
21 ‘537 8, 34, 35, 38, 45, 74 22 ‘060 13, 17 23 13 Although other claims are discussed above for purpose of explaining how 24 claims of the patents reflect patent eligible concepts, Plaintiff’s assertion of 25 specific claims as being infringed in this Complaint is governed by this section. 26 -114- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 116 of 137 Page ID #:1320
1 ‘527 15, 17 2 ‘911 14-16 3 ‘071 16 4 ‘638 22
5 The following claims are not independently asserted against Defendants: 6 Patent Claims 7 ‘014 8 ‘499 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 9 ‘080 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14-16 10 ‘831 1 11 ‘495 25, 27 12 ‘537 1 13 ‘060 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 15 14 ‘527 1-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 15 ‘911 25-30 16 ‘071 1 17 ‘638 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 18 21 19 With respect to the claims not identified above, Plaintiff further avers not all 20 claims of all the patents in suit are infringed or will be asserted in this litigation or 21 be in controversy. Most of the claims of the patents in suit are directed to back- 22 end computer systems and that the source code and complete operation of the 23 accused systems is not publically available to fully assess all issues of 24 infringement and invalidity. With respect to the claims not identified above, 25 26 -115- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 117 of 137 Page ID #:1321
1 Plaintiff anticipates that this group of claims will be limited to a specific number 2 by claim election at the appropriate Court scheduled time after appropriate 3 discovery of source code with respect to infringement and disclosure of 4 Defendants’ invalidity defenses. 5 COUNT 1 6 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 5,813,014) 7 166. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 8 above and incorporates them herein. 9 167. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 10 presently infringing the ’014 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. 11 § 271(a), by making, using, putting into use, offering to sell, and selling the 12 Accused Systems and those of third parties including without limitation customers 13 and CDNs. By way of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as 14 PornHub.com is an article of manufacture comprising computer readable program 15 code for accessing multimedia data comprising code to cause a computer to define 16 a catalogue for multimedia data, code to cause a computer to specify a search 17 request, code to cause a computer to identify a result, code to cause a computer to 18 retrieve multimedia data, and code to cause a computer to store the search request 19 and thus uses the invention covered by at least one claim of the ’014 Patent. 20 168. Defendants indirectly infringes the ’014 Patent by inducing or 21 contributing to the infringement of the ’014 Patent, including but not limited to 22 infringement by customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)-(c)&(f). 23 169. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 24 subject matter of the ’014 Patent. 25 26 -116- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 118 of 137 Page ID #:1322
1 170. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 2 and/or contributory infringement of the ’014 Patent, Preservation has been injured 3 and has been caused significant financial damage. 4 171. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 5 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 6 172. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 7 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 8 of the ’014 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 9 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 10 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 11 despite knowledge or despite the facts that they should have known of an 12 objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of 13 Preservation’s valid patent rights, continue to infringe. 14 173. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 15 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 16 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 17 174. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’014 Patent, 18 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 19 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 20 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 21 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 22 COUNT 2 23 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 5,832,499) 24 25 26 -117- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 119 of 137 Page ID #:1323
1 175. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 2 above and incorporates them herein. 3 176. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 4 presently infringing the ’499 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 5 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 6 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 7 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com are 8 articles of manufacture comprising computer readable code configured to cause a 9 computer to search a local cache, cause a computer to retrieve a multimedia data 10 from a remote cache, and cause a computer to retrieve multimedia data from 11 permanent storage and thus uses the invention covered by at least one claim of the 12 ’499 Patent. 13 177. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’499 Patent by inducing or 14 contributing to the infringement of the ’499 Patent, including but not limited to 15 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 16 (c)&(f). 17 178. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 18 subject matter of the ’499 Patent. 19 179. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 20 and/or contributory infringement of the ’499 Patent, Preservation has been injured 21 and has been caused significant financial damage. 22 180. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 23 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 24 25 26 -118- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 120 of 137 Page ID #:1324
1 181. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 2 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 3 of the ’499 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 4 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 5 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 6 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 7 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 8 patent rights, continue to infringe. 9 182. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 10 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 11 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 12 183. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’499 Patent, 13 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 14 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 15 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 16 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 17 COUNT 3 18 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,092,080) 19 184. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 20 above and incorporates them herein. 21 185. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 22 presently infringing the ’080 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 23 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 24 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 25 26 -119- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 121 of 137 Page ID #:1325
1 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include a 2 digital library system comprising a cataloguing system, an access management 3 system, and a distribution system and thus uses the invention covered by at least 4 one claim of the ’080 Patent. 5 186. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’080 Patent by inducing or 6 contributing to the infringement of the ’080 Patent, including but not limited to 7 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 8 (c)&(f). 9 187. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 10 subject matter of the ’080 Patent. 11 188. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 12 and/or contributory infringement of the ’080 Patent, Preservation has been injured 13 and has been caused significant financial damage. 14 189. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 15 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 16 190. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 17 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 18 of the ’080 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 19 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 20 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 21 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 22 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 23 patent rights, continue to infringe. 24 25 26 -120- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 122 of 137 Page ID #:1326
1 191. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 2 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 3 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 4 192. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’080 Patent, 5 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 6 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 7 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 8 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 9 COUNT 4 10 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,353,831) 11 193. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 12 above and incorporates them herein. 13 194. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 14 presently infringing the ’831 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 15 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 16 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 17 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include a 18 digital library system comprising a means for cataloguing multimedia data, a 19 means for managing access, and a means for distributing multimedia data and thus 20 uses the invention covered by at least one claim of the ’831 Patent. 21 195. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’831 Patent by inducing or 22 contributing to the infringement of the ’831 Patent, including but not limited to 23 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 24 (c)&(f). 25 26 -121- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 123 of 137 Page ID #:1327
1 196. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 2 subject matter of the ’831 Patent. 3 197. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 4 and/or contributory infringement of the ’831 Patent, Preservation has been injured 5 and has been caused significant financial damage. 6 198. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 7 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 8 199. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 9 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 10 of the ’831 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 11 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 12 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 13 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 14 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 15 patent rights, continue to infringe. 16 200. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 17 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 18 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 19 201. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’831 Patent, 20 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 21 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 22 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 23 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 24 25 26 -122- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 124 of 137 Page ID #:1328
1 COUNT 5 2 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 5,832,495) 3 202. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 4 above and incorporates them herein. 5 203. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 6 presently infringing the ’495 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 7 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 8 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 9 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include a 10 system for cataloging multimedia data comprising a processing unit, a cataloguing 11 facility, a relationship management facility, and a plurality of index elements and 12 thus uses the invention covered by at least one claim of the ’495 Patent. 13 204. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’495 Patent by inducing or 14 contributing to the infringement of the ’495 Patent, including but not limited to 15 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 16 (c)&(f). 17 205. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 18 subject matter of the ’495 Patent. 19 206. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 20 and/or contributory infringement of the ’495 Patent, Preservation has been injured 21 and has been caused significant financial damage. 22 207. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 23 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 24 25 26 -123- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 125 of 137 Page ID #:1329
1 208. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 2 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 3 of the ’495 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 4 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 5 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 6 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 7 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 8 patent rights, continue to infringe. 9 209. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 10 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 11 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 12 210. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’495 Patent, 13 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 14 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 15 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 16 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 17 COUNT 6 18 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,477,537) 19 211. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 20 above and incorporates them herein. 21 212. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 22 presently infringing the ’537 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 23 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 24 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 25 26 -124- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 126 of 137 Page ID #:1330
1 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include an 2 API comprising API protocol means comprising a command interface comprising 3 means for selecting multimedia data, means for retrieving multimedia data, and 4 means for displaying multimedia data and thus uses the invention covered by at 5 least one claim of the ’537 Patent. 6 213. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’537 Patent by inducing or 7 contributing to the infringement of the ’537 Patent, including but not limited to 8 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 9 (c)&(f). 10 214. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 11 subject matter of the ’537 Patent. 12 215. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 13 and/or contributory infringement of the ’537 Patent, Preservation has been injured 14 and has been caused significant financial damage. 15 216. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 16 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 17 217. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 18 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 19 of the ’537 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 20 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 21 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 22 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 23 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 24 patent rights, continue to infringe. 25 26 -125- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 127 of 137 Page ID #:1331
1 218. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 2 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 3 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 4 219. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’537 Patent, 5 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 6 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 7 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 8 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 9 COUNT 7 10 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,199,060) 11 220. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 12 above and incorporates them herein. 13 221. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 14 presently infringing the ’060 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 15 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 16 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 17 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include a 18 computer usable medium having computer readable code configured to cause a 19 computer to define a generalized protocol, invoke a search request, communicate 20 between at least two components, return a search result, invoke a retrieval request, 21 and invoke a transmit request and thus uses the invention covered by at least one 22 claim of the ’060 Patent. 23 222. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’060 Patent by inducing or 24 contributing to the infringement of the ’060 Patent, including but not limited to 25 26 -126- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 128 of 137 Page ID #:1332
1 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 2 (c)&(f). 3 223. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 4 subject matter of the ’060 Patent. 5 224. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 6 and/or contributory infringement of the ’060 Patent, Preservation has been injured 7 and has been caused significant financial damage. 8 225. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 9 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 10 226. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 11 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 12 of the ’060 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 13 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 14 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 15 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 16 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 17 patent rights, continue to infringe. 18 227. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 19 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 20 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 21 228. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’060 Patent, 22 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 23 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 24 25 26 -127- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 129 of 137 Page ID #:1333
1 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 2 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 3 COUNT 8 4 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,212,527) 5 229. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 6 above and incorporates them herein. 7 230. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 8 presently infringing the ’527 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 9 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 10 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 11 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com operate a 12 method of managing multimedia data collection quality comprising reviewing 13 multimedia data, creating a quality event, and associating the quality event with 14 an input data portion of the multimedia data and thus uses the invention covered 15 by at least one claim of the ’527 Patent. 16 231. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’527 Patent by inducing or 17 contributing to the infringement of the ’527 Patent, including but not limited to 18 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 19 (c)&(f). 20 232. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 21 subject matter of the ’527 Patent. 22 233. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 23 and/or contributory infringement of the ’527 Patent, Preservation has been injured 24 and has been caused significant financial damage. 25 26 -128- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 130 of 137 Page ID #:1334
1 234. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 2 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 3 235. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 4 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 5 of the ’527 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 6 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 7 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 8 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 9 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 10 patent rights, continue to infringe. 11 236. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 12 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 13 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 14 237. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’527 Patent, 15 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 16 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 17 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 18 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 19 COUNT 9 20 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,549,911) 21 238. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 22 above and incorporates them herein. 23 239. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 24 presently infringing the ’911 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 25 26 -129- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 131 of 137 Page ID #:1335
1 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 2 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 3 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include an 4 article of manufacture comprising computer readable code configured to cause a 5 computer to specify a description for a portion of multimedia data, create a 6 catalogue element, create a plurality of attribute and attribute elements, and create 7 a plurality of relationships between the catalogue element, attributes, and attribute 8 elements and thus uses the invention covered by at least one claim of the ’911 9 Patent. 10 240. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’911 Patent by inducing or 11 contributing to the infringement of the ’911 Patent, including but not limited to 12 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 13 (c)&(f). 14 241. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 15 subject matter of the ’911 Patent. 16 242. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 17 and/or contributory infringement of the ’911 Patent, Preservation has been injured 18 and has been caused significant financial damage. 19 243. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 20 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 21 244. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 22 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 23 of the ’911 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 24 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 25 26 -130- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 132 of 137 Page ID #:1336
1 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 2 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 3 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 4 patent rights, continue to infringe. 5 245. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 6 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 7 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 8 246. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’911 Patent, 9 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 10 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 11 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 12 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 13 COUNT 10 14 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,581,071) 15 247. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 16 above and incorporates them herein. 17 248. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 18 presently infringing the ’071 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 19 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 20 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 21 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com include a 22 memory for storing survey information comprising first and second sets of 23 elements stored in memory and thus uses the invention covered by at least one 24 claim of the ’071 Patent. 25 26 -131- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 133 of 137 Page ID #:1337
1 249. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’071 Patent by inducing or 2 contributing to the infringement of the ’071 Patent, including but not limited to 3 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 4 (c)&(f). 5 250. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 6 subject matter of the ’071 Patent. 7 251. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 8 and/or contributory infringement of the ’071 Patent, Preservation has been injured 9 and has been caused significant financial damage. 10 252. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 11 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 12 253. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 13 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 14 of the ’071 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 15 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 16 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 17 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 18 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 19 patent rights, continue to infringe. 20 254. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 21 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 22 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 23 255. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’071 Patent, 24 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 25 26 -132- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 134 of 137 Page ID #:1338
1 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 2 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 3 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 4 COUNT 11 5 (Direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,574,638) 6 256. Preservation restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth 7 above and incorporates them herein. 8 257. Defendants, without permission of Preservation, have been and are 9 presently infringing the ’638 Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. 10 § 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused Systems and 11 those of third parties including without limitation customers and CDNs. By way 12 of example only, Defendants’ Accused Websites such as PornHub.com associate 13 multimedia data with survey data comprising obtaining an association between 14 the data, searching the survey data to identify a catalogue element, and identifying 15 multimedia data using the catalogue element and thus uses the invention covered 16 by at least one claim of the ’638 Patent. As an example of indirect infringement, 17 end users of the www.pornhub.com website participate in surveys whereby an end 18 user receives and answers one or more questions related to multimedia data (for 19 example, can comment upon and/or rate the adult videos, clips and other media 20 hosted by the website). 21 258. Defendants indirectly infringe the ’638 Patent by inducing or 22 contributing to the infringement of the ’638 Patent, including but not limited to 23 infringement by their customers/consumers, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)- 24 (c)&(f). 25 26 -133- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 135 of 137 Page ID #:1339
1 259. Defendants do not have a license or permission to use the claimed 2 subject matter of the ’638 Patent. 3 260. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ direct, joint, induced, 4 and/or contributory infringement of the ’638 Patent, Preservation has been injured 5 and has been caused significant financial damage. 6 261. Defendants’ aforementioned acts have caused damage to Preservation 7 and will continue to do so unless and until enjoined. 8 262. Preservation alleges upon information and belief that Defendants 9 have, knowingly or with willful blindness, willfully infringed one or more claims 10 of the ’638 patent. Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents as set forth 11 above, having been advised of the existence and substance of the Asserted Patents 12 by Preservation. Defendants acted with knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and, 13 despite their knowledge or despite that they should have known of an objectively 14 high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of Preservation’s valid 15 patent rights, continue to infringe. 16 263. This objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it 17 should have been known to Defendants. Preservation seeks enhanced damages 18 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 from Defendants. 19 264. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’638 Patent, 20 Preservation has suffered monetary damages. Defendants are thus liable to 21 Preservation in an amount that adequately compensates it for Defendants’ 22 infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together 23 with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 24 25 26 -134- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 136 of 137 Page ID #:1340
1 JURY DEMAND 2 265. Plaintiff Preservation hereby requests a trial by jury on all matters to 3 which it is entitled to trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure. 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Preservation respectfully requests that the Court: 7 A. Enter judgment that Defendants directly infringe, contribute to 8 infringement, or induce others to infringe one or more claims of 9 the Asserted Patents literally and/or under the doctrine of 10 equivalents; 11 B. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, servants, and 12 employees, and all those in privity with Defendants or in active 13 concert and participation with Defendants, from engaging in 14 acts of infringement of the Asserted Patents; 15 C. Award Plaintiff past and future damages together with 16 prejudgment and post-judgment interest to compensate for the 17 infringement by Defendants of the Asserted Patents in 18 accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; 19 D. Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and 20 E. Award Plaintiff Preservation its costs, disbursements, attorney’s 21 fees, and such further and additional relief as deemed 22 appropriate by this Court. 23 24 25 26 -135- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28 Case 2:17-cv-08906-DOC-JPR Document 64 Filed 10/15/18 Page 137 of 137 Page ID #:1341
1 DATE: October 12, 2018 HARDY PARRISH YANG LLP
2 By: /s/ R. Floyd Walker 3 Victor G. Hardy (admitted pro hac vice) William M. Parrish (admitted pro hac vice) 4 R. Floyd Walker (admitted pro hac vice) 5
6 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & 7 RAUGHT, P.C. Douglas Q. Hahn 8 Salil Bali 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Preservation 10 Technologies, LLC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -136- 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28